12/31/2005

Applicant is a 48-year-old naturalized citizen of the United States who has been employed as a linguist for a defense contractor since 2003. Applicant was born in Iraq and is of Kurdish ethnicity. He and his family fled to Iran in 1975, and he came to the United States in 1977. His family returned to Iraq in 1991. Applicant and his wife have strong family ties in Iraq and, despite his loyalty to his chosen country, he has not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline B, foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

12/31/2005

Applicant's credit report of July 2005 reflects two unpaid delinquencies, a charged off credit card balance of $4,102 and another in collection with $5,014 owed. Financial considerations concerns are mitigated where Applicant has a history of timely payment of his financial obligations, and his ex-wife is making payments on the latter debt, which she incurred during their marriage. Applicant did not knowingly falsify his September 2002 security clearance application by denying any delinquent debts over 180 days. Clearance is granted.

12/31/2005

12/31/2005

Applicant, a 53-year-old employee of a defense contractor used marijuana and cocaine at varying frequencies between 1980 and 1998. He held a security clearance for the last 16 years of that time. He denied such use on his SF 86 filed in 2002, because he did not want his employer to know of the drug use. Clearance is denied.

12/31/2005

Applicant, a 55-year-old employee of a defense contractor working as a senior software engineer, is a dual citizen of Iran and the U.S. holding passports from both countries. Under a student visa in 1968, he studied physics and nuclear engineering in the U.S. In 1978, he returned to Iran hoping to contract with the government for his services on computer software. When that effort failed, he returned to the U.S. in 1993. He declines to surrender his Iranian passport which he renewed in 2002 after obtaining U.S. citizenship in 1998. Clearance is denied.

12/31/2005

Applicant's wife is a citizen of the Russian Federation and resides with him in the U.S. His father, half-brother, half-sister, and mother-in-law are citizens and residents of the Russian Federation. His sister is a U.S. citizen residing in the Russian Federation. After becoming a U.S. citizen, Applicant used his USSR and Russian Federation passports to travel to Russia approximately five times. After his hearing, he surrendered the passports to authorized consular officials of the Russian Federation. While Applicant mitigated his previous conduct indicating a preference for the Russian Federation over the U.S., his familial ties to citizens and residents of the Russian Federation raise serious security concerns because they could result in the compromise of classified information. Clearance is denied.

12/31/2005

In 1997, Applicant was terminated from his employment for sending sexually harassing notes to "numerous" women in the company. DOHA alleged security concerns from his conduct and his failure to fully admit the reasons for his termination in his security clearance application. Applicant mitigated security concerns raised by his answer on the security clearance application. Although the termination was not recent, Applicant refused to fully accept responsibility for his conduct. Clearance is denied.

12/31/2005

In 1995, Applicant filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection to resolve debts and other obligations totaling more than $95,000. He not only failed to complete the repayment plan, he also accrued more than $19,000 in new delinquencies. As of June 2003, he had sufficient cash flow to pay down the new debts, but took no significant action to do so until just before this hearing. He also deliberately omitted from his most recent security clearance application (SF 86) relevant information about his debts and a prior criminal indictment. Clearance is denied.

12/31/2005

Twenty-six year old Applicant has a history not meeting her financial obligations totaling about $21,713 and writing bad checks. There are at least three outstanding warrants for her arrest for nonpayment of the charges related to three bad checks. Court costs related to each charge were imposed as well as fines. Applicant attributes her financial predicament to being unemployed as well as living beyond her means when she was employed. She has no intention to pay off a number of the debts, because she believes the debts will drop off her credit report in the next couple of years. Although she has defaulted on payment of a number of her debts, she vacationed in Mexico on at least nine occasions while her debts went unpaid. Clearly, her priority is not to get her finances in order. Clearance is denied.

12/31/2005

12/30/2005

The Applicant has renounced his Slovenian citizenship, and has surrendered his Slovenian passport in Compliance with the Money Memorandum ("Guide to DoD Central Adjudication Facilities (CAF) Clarifying the Application of Foreign Preference Adjudication Guidelines," dated September 1, 2000). He was born in the U.S. to foreign nationals, but returned to the former Yugoslavia as an infant. He served in the Yugoslav army from 1989~1990, and returned to the U.S. in 1995. The Applicant's Serbian mother and his Slovenian father reside in Belgium. His grandparents and an uncle reside in Slovenia. An aunt resides in Serbia and Montenegro. The Applicant is not subject to coercion vis-a-vis any of these foreign relatives. All of his foreign travels, save one trip in 1995, were with a U.S. passport. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

12/30/2005

As a senior enlisted man in the U.S. Navy, Applicant without authorization removed to his personal residence classified materials pertaining to his ship's nuclear propulsion system. After being punished through a summary court martial, he was given a general discharge under honorable conditions. While his violation of standing procedures was negligent, it was also an isolated event. He has demonstrated a positive attitude toward his security responsibilities, and he is unlikely to commit such a violation in the future. Clearance is granted.

12/30/2005

Applicant is 37 years old and has worked for a federal contractor as an avionics technician since 2000. Applicant served in the Marine Corps, had an alcohol-related incident in 1988, and was ordered on two occasions, three years apart, to attend Level I and II Alcohol Education. Applicant continues to drink excessively on the weekends, admits to driving while intoxicated every couple of months, and although he previously stated his wife thought he had an alcohol problem, now contradicts himself in that regard. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding his alcohol consumption under Guideline G. Clearance is denied.

12/30/2005

Applicant is 29 years old and has been an "office worker" for a federal contractor since 2001. Applicant has approximately $19,000 in delinquent debt that she has been unwilling and unable to resolve. Applicant deliberately failed to list her delinquent debts and repossession on her security clearance application. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, and Guideline E, personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

12/30/2005

Applicant, who is a U.S. naturalized citizen and was a citizen of Algeria solely by virtue of his birth and his parents' birth in the country, and who renewed obtained an Algerian passport for use in traveling to and from Algeria to see his father, fails to absolve himself of preference concerns, despite his being a U.S. citizen since 2003, and his having no identified financial interests in Algeria. Because Applicant's father and extended family members who reside in Algeria are shown to be still potentially vulnerable to pressure or coercion, foreign influence concerns pose unmitigated security risks as well. Clearance is denied.

12/30/2005

Applicant is a 47-year-old employee working for a defense contractor. Following college, she met and married a student from Yemen. After briefly residing in Yemen, the couple returned to the United States and the husband became a naturalized citizen. Applicant has six in-laws and a nephew who are residents and citizens of Yemen. Although she has no relationship with these in-laws owing to language differences and distance, her husband has maintained contact with them. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by the presence of these foreign relatives abroad. Clearance is denied.

12/30/2005

Applicant was convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1995 and 2002. Although he listed the 2002 conviction in a security clearance application he submitted in June 2003, he failed to list the 1995 conviction. Applicant has successfully mitigated the alcohol consumption and personal conduct security concerns that existed in this case. Clearance is granted.

12/30/2005

Applicant, a 52-year-old software engineer, born in the PRC and educated there and at two U.S. universities in several disciplines, failed to mitigate security concerns relating to his family members in the PRC. These include his parents, three siblings and his mother-in-law. Clearance denied.

12/30/2005

Applicant committed a number of criminal offenses between 1991 and 2002. He also used his position of trust as a mental health technician to have sexual intercourse with a patient who was 15 or 16 years old. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his sexual behavior, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

12/30/2005

Because Department Counsel states it is not challenging the Administrative Judge's formal finding in favor of Applicant under Guideline J, its argument concerning Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition 6 is moot. Department Counsel argues for a plausible, alternate interpretation of the record evidence but fails to demonstrate the Judge's conclusions under Guideline G are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Board does not have to agree with the Judge to conclude there is sufficient record evidence to permit the Judge to apply Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition 3. Favorable decision affirmed.

12/30/2005

Applicant was twice convicted of theft-related offenses (one in 1986 and the other in 1999) and was sentenced to more than a year on his most recent offense, suspended, and placed on probation for two years, subject to compliance with his two year probation conditions. Applicant's actions raise judgment and trustworthiness concerns. His mitigation efforts, while encouraging, are insufficient at this time to mitigate the Government's security concerns. Clearance is denied.

12/30/2005

While on active duty in the U.S. Navy, Applicant received non-judicial punishment for using provoking language and making threats toward his chief petty officer. He was evaluated for anger management and alcohol abuse, diagnosed as having a personality disorder, and discharged from the Navy for misconduct. On his security clearance application (SF-86), he intentionally did not disclose his non-judicial punishment and mental health evaluation. In a subsequent interview with a security investigator, he gave false explanations for his omissions from the SF-86 and the reasons for his discharge from the Navy. Security concerns based on personal conduct and criminal conduct are not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

12/30/2005

Applicant is a 63-year-old security officer for a defense contractor. He inappropriately sexually touched female employees of a hospital where he was working and was terminated. He admitted having sexual relations with women not his wife, and his wife is not aware of his actions. He was terminated by another employer for insubordination. He also deliberately failed to inform security investigators of his actions for fear of losing his security clearance. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for sexual behavior and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

12/30/2005

In the fall of 1998, Applicant, a 38-year-old employee of a federal contractor, by rude behavior and failure to communicate and cooperate with his superiors, demonstrated his unreliability, poor judgment, and lack of trustworthiness. However, this personal conduct has been mitigated because it was an isolated period of time, was not recent, and his subsequent conduct is in compliance with DoD guidelines. Clearance is granted.

12/30/2005

Given the record evidence in this case, the Administrative Judge failed to articulate a rational basis for his application of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1. Department Counsel has failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered the evidence concerning Applicant's conduct under Guideline C. A Judge's obligation to consider and apply pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines does not override the Judge's obligation to evaluate an applicant's security eligibility in light of the "whole person" concept. The error identified by Department Counsel is sufficient to warrant remand, but not reversal. Case remanded with instructions.

12/30/2005

Applicant and her husband incurred substantial debt when they decided he should stay home to educate their son. A 1995 bankruptcy and an installment payment plan to the IRS are resolving their financial situation. Clearance is granted.

12/29/2005

The Applicant has renounced his Israeli citizenship, and has surrendered his Israeli passport in Compliance with the Money Memorandum ("Guide to DoD Central Adjudication Facilities (CAF) Clarifying the Application of Foreign Preference Adjudication Guidelines," dated September 1, 2000). From 1991 to 2003, he worked in Israel, as a dual national, for an Israeli firm, working on a joint project with an American firm for the U.S. Army. He receives a $250 monthly pension as a result of this employment. He also voted in a local mayoral election. He has little contact with an elderly cousin and her spouse, who are citizens and reside in Israel. The Applicant is not subject to coercion vis-a-vis these distant relatives. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

12/29/2005

Applicant's (1) long-standing financial difficulties and (2) dishonest conduct preclude a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

12/29/2005

Because there is no presumption of error below, the Administrative Judge's unchallenged findings of fact do not have to be reviewed by the Board. The Judge's finding that Applicant served in the military reserves is a plausible interpretation of the record evidence in this case. Board cannot consider the new evidence proffered by Applicant on appeal. Given the absence of any response to the File of Relevant Material from Applicant, the Judge properly made her findings of fact and reached her conclusions based on the File of Relevant Material. Adverse decision affirmed.

12/29/2005

By asking the Board to substitute its judgment for that of the Administrative Judge, Applicant is asking for relief to which he is not entitled. The Board's scope of review is limited under the terms of the Directive. Applicant's ability to argue for a plausible, alternate interpretation of the record evidence does not demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, nor does it demonstrate the Judge erred with respect to Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1. A favorable credibility determination does not preclude an unfavorable decision based on security concerns unrelated to an applicant's candor and honesty. Adverse decision affirmed.

12/29/2005

Department Counsel has not demonstrated that the Administrative Judge erred in his application of Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions 3 and 6. Department Counsel has demonstrated that the Judge's findings concerning the falsifications covered by SOR paragraphs 2.a and 2.b fail to take into account significant record evidence to the contrary. Case remanded with instructions.

12/29/2005

The Applicant has three felony convictions, which occurred in 1977 and 1978, when he was still a teenager. The provisions of 10 U.S.C. 986, as amended on October 9, 2004, still apply as to his second incarceration, which exceeded one year. Furthermore, I can not ignore his continued, post incarceration, illegal conduct, which ended with his addiction to crack cocaine in 1994. This is not meritorious conduct that merits waiver consideration; and as such, I do not recommend further consideration of this case for waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986. Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied.

12/28/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns resulting from falsifications he made about alcohol-related arrests and subsequent alcohol treatment on his security clearance application. Additionally, Applicant's continuing use of alcohol and his pattern of criminal conduct related to his excessive use of alcohol raise serious concerns about his security worthiness. Clearance is denied.

12/27/2005

Applicant is a 44-year-old mechanical engineer who has worked for a federal contractor since 2002. Applicant was born in Iran and became a naturalized United States citizen in 1997. Applicant holds an Iranian passport that he uses when he visits his family in Iran. Applicant intends on keeping his Iranian passport. Applicant's Iranian father lives with him several months of each year Applicant returns periodically to Iran to visit his grandmother. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by Guideline C, foreign preference, and Guideline B, foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

12/27/2005

After graduating from high school, the Applicant fled Vietnam as a "boat person" in 1981. His 73 year old father worked for the South Vietnamese government; and as such, the Applicant's entire family are treated as second class citizens. His father was sent to a re-education camp. He and the Applicant's brother make a living by repairing mopeds. The Applicant mother is a housewife. The Applicant's two sisters have been approved to immigrate to the U.S. One sister makes a living by selling decals. The other lives at home with the Applicant's parents. The Applicant sends his family $200 each year, and has visited them in 1999 and in 2001. None of the Applicant's foreign relatives are connected to any foreign government, nor are they the subject of coercion vis-a-vis the Applicant. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

12/27/2005

Applicant is a 58-year-old naturalized United States citizen who has resided in the United States for 31 years. He works as a computer specialist for a federal contractor. He has three siblings who are citizens and residents of Iran. Applicant failed to mitigate the foreign influence security concerns raised by the presence of his family members in Iran. Clearance is denied.

12/27/2005

Applicant and his immediate family fled Iran in 1980 and have become U.S. citizens. Applicant has polite telephonic contact with an uncle in Iran once a year and no contact with his five aunts in Iran. Applicant's wife is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Her parents are citizens and residents of the Republic of Korea (ROK). Applicant and his wife are estranged from her father, a retired diplomat for the ROK. Applicant has only limited and superficial contact with his mother-in-law because of the language barrier. The security concern based on foreign influence is mitigated. Clearance is granted.

12/27/2005

Applicant is a technician for a defense contractor. He was convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1983 and 1993. He was convicted of domestic assault after consuming alcohol in 1996. He admits to continuing to drink alcohol to excess and intoxication at least twice monthly. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for alcohol consumption. Clearance is denied.

12/27/2005

Applicant wrongfully used illegal drugs on numerous occasions between 1982 and 2004, including two instances after he obtained a security clearance. He willfully failed to file his federal income tax returns between 1995 and 1999, in violation of federal law, although he later complied. He also has a history of delinquent debts which he is currently unable or unwilling to resolve. Finally, Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application when he denied illegal drug use within the preceding seven years. He failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his history of drug involvement, his financial considerations, and his falsification of the security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

12/27/2005

Applicant's long-standing financial difficulties preclude a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

12/23/2005

In the decision below the Administrative Judge cites two different versions of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1. It is not clear which version the Judge relied on as legally binding in adjudicating Applicant's ADP trustworthiness case. In order to decide the merits of this appeal, the Board would have to make a threshold determination as to which version of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1 is applicable in ADP trustworthiness cases adjudicated under DoD Regulation 5200.2-R. Resolution of that threshold determination would involve consideration of novel factual and legal issues not addressed during the proceedings below. The most appropriate course of action would be to remand the case with instructions to the Judge to reopen the record to allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument as to which version of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1 is applicable to Applicant's ADP trustworthiness case. Case remanded with instructions.

12/22/2005

Applicant had numerous drunk driving convictions between 1996 and 2000. He no longer drinks, but he was convicted of prostitution in 2003. He has not told his wife of the prostitution conviction. Applicant failed to mitigate criminal conduct and sexual behavior security concerns. Clearance is denied.

12/22/2005

Applicant is 37 years old and works as a multimedia production analyst for a defense contractor. In 1997, he was convicted of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated, and in 2003, of Driving While Ability Impaired. After the second conviction, Applicant completed an alcohol treatment program. Since 2003, he has not been involved in any alcohol related incidents. Applicant mitigated the security concerns related to his alcohol consumption. Clearance is granted.

12/22/2005

Applicant is 63 years old and works in computer systems for a defense contractor. Applicant and his family applied for immigration status in 1975, and were granted permission to come to the U.S., from India, in 1992. They became naturalized citizens in 1999. Applicant had previously served in the Indian military and receives a minimal pension that is deposited in a bank in India. Applicant left India with four months notice and did not sell his house. The value of the house and pension is inconsequential compared to Applicant's total assets. Applicant's wife has eight siblings in India that they have minimal contact with. Applicant has successfully mitigated the security concerns under Guidelines C, foreign preference, and Guideline B, foreign influence. Clearance is granted.

12/22/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate allegations of foreign influence arising from his marriage to an Egyptian, his ownership of property in Egypt, relatives of his wife living in Egypt, and contacts with an Egyptian military attache while working in Romania. Clearance is denied.

12/22/2005

Applicant was arrested for alcohol-related driving offenses on three occasions from 1991 to 2002, and failed to file state income tax returns from 1999 to 2002. He successfully completed an intensive alcohol treatment and counseling program and three years supervised probation required as a result of his third arrest, and he has maintained sobriety since October 2002. He also resolved his tax difficulties successfully and has paid his other debts in full, thereby successfully mitigating security concerns arising from his alcohol consumption, criminal conduct and financial difficulties. Clearance is granted.

12/22/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Absent a showing that a party was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence for the Administrative to consider, a party is not entitled to another opportunity to present evidence for the Judge to consider in the case. A review of the record below shows that Applicant was provided a reasonable opportunity to present evidence for the Judge to consider. Furthermore, there is no right to have the record kept open indefinitely so that a party can offer new evidence for consideration in a case. Applicant's proffer of new evidence on appeal does not demonstrate error by the Judge, and does not provide a basis for remanding the case for further proceedings or reversing the Judge's decision. Adverse decision affirmed.

12/22/2005

Applicant and his wife incurred delinquent debts after she was laid off from her job in 1996. She found work shortly thereafter, albeit at lower pay. Applicant paid off some of the debts and asserts he is not responsible for those incurred by his wife. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his financial situation. Clearance is denied.

12/22/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate criminal conduct allegations relating to an insurance fraud charge in 1993 and solicitation of prostitution in 2001 to which he pled guilty. He did successfully mitigate a charge of misuse of telephone relating to collection of a debt in 1991 for which he was granted judgment and the telephone charge was dismissed. Clearance is denied.

12/22/2005

Applicant served six months in prison for his involvement in a car theft in 1989 and less than a year for a drug offense in 1993-1994, and was arrested for battery in February 1996 and in October 1996 for a drug offense and a handgun offense, but he later became a highly respected employee of a defense contractor. He received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in September 2003, but he still owes a child support arrearage and delinquent state taxes, which he was paying by payroll deduction until he was terminated from his latest job for lack of a security clearance. He erroneously answered "no" to questions on his security clearance application about his criminal record. The allegations of falsifying his SF-86 are rebutted, and the security concerns based on criminal conduct and financial considerations are mitigated. Clearance is granted.

12/22/2005

It is impossible for the Board to decide this appeal on the merits in the face of an incomplete case record. The Administrative Judge should take reasonable steps to locate missing portions of the case record, or work with the parties to use copies of documents in the possession of the parties to substitute for the missing portions of the case record. The Judge can reopen the evidentiary record to allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to present additional evidence or submissions necessary to reconstitute the case record as close as practical to the original case record. After doing so, the Judge should issue a new decision consistent with the requirements of Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Items E3.1.35 and E3.1.25. Case remanded with instructions.

12/21/2005

The Applicant has repeatedly stated he is willing to renounce his Iranian citizenship, and thinks he has done so. He has surrendered his Iranian passport in Compliance with the Money Memorandum ("Guide to DoD Central Adjudication Facilities (CAF) Clarifying the Application of Foreign Preference Adjudication Guidelines," dated September 1, 2000). The Applicant's father is a citizen of and resides in Iran. He is 72, and retired from private enterprise. The Applicant's mother is a dual national who resides in both the U.S. and Iran. His two brothers are citizens of and reside in Iran. One works for the airline industry, and the other is in retail. None of the Applicant's relatives are connected with any foreign government, or the subject of possible coercion vis-a-vis the Applicant. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

12/21/2005

12/21/2005

The Applicant's parents and siblings are citizens of, and resident in, the People's Republic of China. They are not agents of the Chinese government, or in a position to be exploited by that government. The Applicant is knowledgeable about her security responsibilities, and shows that she can fulfill them. Sufficient mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

12/21/2005

Applicant is a technical director for a defense contractor. He was born in Turkey, and received his undergraduate degree from a university in Turkey. He came to the United States for graduate education, married his United States citizen wife, and became a naturalized United States citizen. His mother, father, and brother reside in Turkey. He visits them each year and talks to them a few times a week. He attended required military training in Turkey after receiving United States citizenship to please his parents and facilitate renunciation of Turkish citizenship. He formally requested renunciation of his Turkish citizenship, and it was granted by the Turkish government. Applicant mitigated security concerns for foreign preference and influence. Clearance is granted.

12/21/2005

The security concerns raised by a 45-year-old Vietnam-born naturalized U.S. citizen Applicant (with four siblings and four children who are U.S. citizens) with three siblings who are citizens and residents of Vietnam and one sibling who is a citizen and resident of Hong Kong, with whom he does not maintain close ties of affection or obligation--none of whom are agents of Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, or the Peoples Republic of China, or in a position to be exploited by those foreign governments--have been mitigated by the evidence developed herein. Clearance is granted.

12/20/2005

This 52-year-old technical specialist was born in South Vietnam in 1953, came to the U.S. in 1975 to escape the Communist takeover, completed his college education, married, began his career, and became a U.S. citizen in 1982. Her first obtained a DoD security clearance in 1989. His elderly parents and siblings remain in Vietnam. He has little contact with them. His fundamental loyalty is to the U.S. and his American family. He convincingly avers he would report any improper contacts, regardless of source. His colleagues ands friends consider him to be a man of integrity and dedication to U.S. interests. Mitigation has been established. Clearance is granted.

12/20/2005

While serving on active duty, a mortgage holder foreclosed on a property held in applicant's name. The mortgage holder is claiming applicant still owes it approximately $36,000.00. Applicant is trying to work out a settlement with the mortgage holder using the mortgage holder's failure to comply with the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act (SSRA) as leverage. If he is unable to work out a settlement and is forced to pay the debt, applicant is financially able to do so. Clearance is granted.

12/20/2005

Given the Administrative Judge's unchallenged findings about Applicant's family ties and financial interests in Lebanon, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude security concerns were raised under Guideline B that shifted the burden of persuasion to Applicant. Applicant's disagreements with the Judge's weighing of the record evidence are not sufficient to demonstrate error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed.

12/20/2005

There is a rebuttable presumption that quasi-judicial officials are unbiased and impartial, and a party seeking to rebut that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion on appeal. Bias or lack of impartiality is not demonstrated merely because an Administrative Judge made adverse findings of reached unfavorable conclusions in a case. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge was unbiased and impartial. The Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's history of financial difficulties are sustainable. Given the record evidence in this case, it is not clear whether the Judge's findings of falsification are sustainable, but remand is not warranted because any error concerning those findings would be harmless in light of the Judge's sustainable findings and conclusions under Guideline F. Adverse decision affirmed.

12/19/2005

Applicant's father and brother are residents of Kosovo. His close familial ties to residents of Kosovo raise serious security concerns because they could be exploited by individuals hostile to the U.S. and could result in the compromise of classified information. Clearance is denied.

12/19/2005

Applicant is a 30-year-old computer systems administrator for a federal contractor. Applicant has a history of criminal offenses, both felony and misdemeanor, some occurring when he was a juvenile. Applicant failed to divulge all of his criminal background on his security clearance application. Applicant had some minor financial problems that he has resolved. Applicant mitigated the security concerns regarding his finances, but failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct, and Guideline J, criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

12/19/2005

Applicant used cocaine for a relatively brief period of time in 1986-87, and then on four occasions between 1999 and 2002. He disclosed the latter use in a security clearance application he submitted in June 2003, but did not disclose the earlier use in statements he provided to an investigator. Applicant credibly explained the omission from the statements he provided. He has mitigated the security concerns that existed in this case. Clearance is granted.

12/19/2005

Ten years ago, in 1996, during his tenure with the Navy, the Applicant demonstrated a "pattern of dishonesty," and Criminal Conduct, which resulted in an Other Than Honorable discharge. In 2000, he also showed a pattern of minor "rule violations" with his present employer. The Applicant has, in the last five years, turned his life around, and now has the unqualified support of his present employer. He was also the victim of identity theft, which has resulted in financial difficulties. He was unaware of any such difficulties when he executed his July 2000, Security Clearance application (SCA). He has since hired legal counsel, and is addressing or disputing the alleged past due debts. The Applicant's credibility is attested to those who know him well. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

12/19/2005

Applicant accrued nearly $12,000 in delinquent or past due debts between 1998 and 2002. His delinquencies in large part were the result of unforeseen events or other conditions beyond his control. He has paid or otherwise resolved all of his debts, and his finances are currently sound. Applicant's omissions from a security clearance questionnaire of his facts about his debts and about his arrest record were unintentional. Accordingly, Applicant has mitigated the related security concerns about his finances and personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

12/19/2005

Applicant is 33 years old and works as a systems technician for a defense contractor. In 1991, 1992, and 2000, he was arrested and convicted of charges related to alcohol. In 1995, he was convicted of a drug charge. Subsequently, Applicant completed all terms imposed on him by the court, including probation and alcohol counseling programs. Since 2000, he has not been involved in any alcohol related incidents. On his security clearance application, he failed to disclose the 1992 alcohol charge, and disclosed the 1995 drug charge under the wrong security clearance application heading. He credibly denied any intention to falsify information to the government. Applicant mitigated the security concerns related to his alcohol consumption and personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

12/19/2005

In October 1995, Applicant received a diagnosis of alcohol dependence from a counselor of a recognized treatment program. After the diagnosis and following completion of one year of aftercare and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings (where he accomplished the fifth step), Applicant terminated AA and resumed drinking in the fall of 1996. He believed he could manage his alcohol consumption. In February 2001, Applicant exercised poor judgment when he consumed alcohol before entering his place of employment at the ship facility during a period of heightened alert at the facility. Without historic evidence of extended sobriety for a significant period of time, Applicant's current sobriety and participation in AA after receiving the SOR in February 2005 does not mitigate the disqualifying information presented under the alcohol consumption guideline. Clearance is denied.

12/19/2005

Applicant is married t a citizen of the People's Republic of China (PRC), who came to the U.S. for doctoral studies in 1999. An Eagle Scout in his youth, Applicant has proven to be a very dedicated and capable employee for a university-affiliated laboratory, but an unacceptable risk of undue foreign influence persists where his spouse is a PRC citizen who travels to the PRC for her academic work, and her parents and siblings are citizens and/or residents of the PRC. Clearance is denied.

12/19/2005

Applicant abused alcohol in the mid-1990s with drunk driving incidents in 1992, April 1993, and May 1996. Despite two weeks of inpatient substance abuse treatment in 1995, he assaulted a female cohabitant while drunk in May 1996, and was subsequently convicted of assault in the third degree as well as driving under the influence (DUI). Applicant has moderated his alcohol consumption and he reported his most recent DUI on his March 2001 security clearance application, but did not disclose his 1992 or 1993 drunk driving offenses, his 1996 assault or his 1995 substance abuse treatment. He failed to mitigate the personal conduct and criminal conduct concerns engendered by his deliberate falsifications. Clearance is denied.

12/19/2005

The Applicant has renounced her Iranian citizenship and returned her defaced Iranian passport to the proper authorities in compliance with the Money Memorandum ("Guide to DoD Central Adjudication Facilities (CAF) Clarifying the Application of Foreign Preference Adjudication Guidelines," dated September 1, 2000). Almost all of the Applicant's family have emigrated from Iran. The Applicant is not subject to coercion concerning these relatives. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

12/19/2005

In June 1998, while on active duty as an Army officer, Applicant was reprimanded for indecent conduct with two teenaged girls, obstruction of justice, and inappropriately touching an enlisted subordinate. In August 1999, he was reprimanded for assaulting his fianceé during an argument. In October 1999, he was arrested for driving under the influence, ordered by his commander to attend an alcohol abuse program, and left the program without completing it. In March 2000, he was reprimanded for making inappropriate personal comments to a junior enlisted soldier. Security concerns based on personal conduct and sexual behavior are not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

12/19/2005

Applicant rebutted Guideline E allegations that his conduct as principal officer of a small defense contracting company revealed questionable judgment or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations when a co-officer, who was accountable to him, knowingly provided false information to the government in 1992 and the company was cited for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the Truth in Negotiations Act, and the False Claims Act. Clearance is granted.

12/16/2005

Applicant is a 41-year-old computer software instructor who has worked for a federal contractor since 2003. Applicant was convicted of two driving while intoxicated offenses during a sixteen month period from October 1999 to March 2001. At the time, Applicant was recently divorced and was going through a difficult time. Applicant has not had any other incidents since March 2001. She took complete responsibility for her actions and no longer drinks and drives. Her family, friends and employer know of the incidents and she uses them as a way to counsel others not to do what she did. Applicant has successfully mitigated the security concern under Guideline G, alcohol consumption. Clearance is granted.

12/16/2005

Applicant is an employee of a defense contractor. She married her husband, a Moroccan citizen, over 20 years ago. He moved to the United States, became a United States citizen, and resides in the United States. His mother, brothers, sisters, and their spouses are citizens of and reside in Morocco. Applicant visits her in-laws in Morocco approximately every two years. They are not agents of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited by a foreign power forcing Applicant to chose between her loyalty to the relatives and the United States. She does not own or have inheritance rights to property owned by her husband in Morocco. Clearance is granted.

12/16/2005

Applicant has been convicted twice for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), the last offense occurring on June 13, 2003. He continued to consume alcohol after he was convicted of the last DUI, and last reports being intoxicated in April 2005. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns that arise from his alcohol consumption. Clearance is denied.

12/16/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns about his personal conduct; specifically, he deliberately omitted from a security clearance application facts about his military service and arrest record. Clearance is denied.

12/15/2005

This 44-year-old engineer was born in Israel in 1961, came to the U.S. in 1986 to complete his college education, married and had children and became a U.S. citizen in 2001. Her has parents and a sister still citizens of and resident in Israel. They have a close relationship, but they and Applicant understand his fundamental loyalty is to the U.S. and his American family. He convincingly avers he would report any improper contacts, regardless of source. He has no other ties of any significance with Israel. He has surrendered his Israeli passport and renounced his Israeli citizenship. His colleagues ands friends consider him to be a man of integrity and dedication to U.S. interests. Mitigation has been established. Clearance is granted.

12/15/2005

Applicant's credibility is extremely suspect, as he has not been truthful or candid with information that he has furnished to the United States Government in two Security Clearance Applications (SCAs), regarding his employment history, his alcohol- related police record, and his marijuana usage. Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied.

12/14/2005

Applicant has mitigated the financial and personal conduct concerns, but has failed to mitigate the foreign influence concerns. Applicant's father, sister, and cousin are living in Afghanistan. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from his relatives living in Afghanistan. Clearance is denied.

12/14/2005

This 53-year-old employee of a defense contractor has a history of criminal conduct, in 1983, 1991, 1999, and 2002; numerous unresolved delinquent debts, some of which are 10 or more years old, and two instances of falsification of material facts on official documents. Documentation is generally lacking for Applicant's claims and they lack significant credibility. A pattern of questionable conduct, occurring over most of his adult life, has been established. Mitigationand extenuation have not been shown. Clearance is denied

12/14/2005

Applicant willfully and maliciously destroyed company and government documents after being informed she was being transferred. She failed to mitigate the security concern caused by her personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

12/14/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns about his multiple instances of criminal conduct from 1977 through 2002. He also deliberately falsified his SF 86, which is itself criminal conduct, by omitting four arrests from a 2002 security clearance questionnaire, and he has failed to mitigate the related personal conduct concerns. Clearance is denied.

12/14/2005

The factual errors in the decision below identified by Department Counsel are harmless in nature. Department Counsel has not shown that the Administrative Judge acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner by applying Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition 3. The Judge erred by applying Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition 6 to those debts of Applicant that were satisfied through garnishment, but that error is harmless under the particular facts of this case. Favorable decision affirmed.

12/14/2005

Applicant has a lengthy history of drug and alcohol abuse, and arrests, apprehensions, convictions, and other non-criminal sanctions for these offenses. Although Applicant cleaned up his act, he deliberately falsified his security clearance application and a statement he gave to a government agent. Applicant failed to mitigate personal and criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

12/13/2005

Applicant's parents and sister were born in Israel, immigrated to the United States, and became United States citizens almost 20 years ago. Applicant was born in the in the United States. His parents reside in the United States. His sister has resided in Israel since February 2004. Applicant established his sister in Israel is not a security concern since he would not chose between his allegiance to her over his allegiance to the United States. Clearance is granted.

12/13/2005

Applicant, a native of the People's Republic of China (PRC), came to the United States (U.S.) For graduate studies in August 1989, and became a U.S. naturalized citizen in September 2002. Foreign influence concerns persist where his father and siblings, whom he contacts monthly and visited in 1995, 1999, and 2002, are resident citizens of the PRC. Clearance is denied.

12/13/2005

The Administrative Judge was not required, as a matter of law, to accept Applicant's statements about her intentions to address and resolve her delinquent debts. The Judge could consider whether there was record evidence that shed light on whether Applicant was likely to be able to follow through on her stated intentions to address and resolve her delinquent debts. Given the record evidence, the Judge had a sufficient basis to find Applicant's stated intentions were not sufficient to constitute a concrete plan to address and resolve her delinquent debts. Adverse decision affirmed.

12/13/2005

Applicant's disagreements with the Administrative Judge's findings, standing alone, are not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge's findings of misconduct and falsification are sustainable. The absence of any security violation by Applicant did not preclude the Judge from making an unfavorable decision on other grounds. Adverse decision affirmed.

12/12/2005

Applicant experienced family financial problems that began in 1997 and escalated thereafter. His delinquent debts currently exceed $20,000.00, including two debts incurred in 2002 totaling more than $9,000.00 resulting from Applicant's inappropriate use of a travel expense account of a past employer, and nearly $8,000.00 for IRS tax deficiencies from 2001 and 2002. Applicant did not disclose his debts on his Security Clearance Application (SF 86) he signed on June 19, 2004, and he has not significantly reduced the balances of his major debts since 2002. Applicant failed to successfully mitigate the security concerns raised by his financial difficulties and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

12/09/2005

Applicant, a dual citizen of the United States and Iran, has failed to fulfill the requirements of the Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence, dated August 16, 2000, (Money Memorandum) by maintaining a current Iranian passport rather than relinquishing it to the proper Iranian authorities. Applicant's immediate family members, including his mother and father, with whom he has close and continuing contact, and eight siblings or half-siblings, are citizens and residents of Iran. The evidence establishes that Applicant is vulnerable to foreign influence. Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied.

12/09/2005

Applicant has had a history of consuming alcohol to excess, which resulted in at least five alcohol related incidents from 1978 until 2001. Applicant has not consumed any alcohol since December 29, 2001, and he has modified his lifestyle to strongly improve the likelihood that he will not have any relapses in the future. Evidence of Applicant's alcohol rehabilitation is sufficient to mitigate his alcohol related history. Clearance is granted.

12/09/2005

Applicant successfully explained and mitigated the security concern stemming from her history of financial problems. Clearance is granted.

12/09/2005

In February 2001, on two separate occasions one week apart, Applicant, then a decorated Staff Sergeant on active duty with the U.S. Air Force, was directed by his commander to report to the immunization clinic to receive his anthrax vaccination as part of his reassignment process. He acknowledged receiving and understanding both orders, reported to the clinic as ordered, but refused to receive the vaccinations. Nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, was subsequently imposed upon Applicant on two separate occasions, each for one specification for disobeying a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, for which he received reductions in grade. In May 2001, based solely on those two incidents, he was administratively discharged with an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge. He is now considered fully rehabilitated. The questions and doubts as to his security eligibility and suitability have been satisfied. Clearance is granted.

12/08/2005

Applicant's has minimal contact with his half sister who is an Israeli citizen living in Bulgaria. Applicant has surrendered his Israeli passport. His property in Israel is of minimal value. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications about foreign preference and foreign influence. Clearance is granted.

12/08/2005

Applicant and his wife incurred more than $22,000 in delinquent debts. Although he has the resources to pay these debts, Applicant refuses to do so. Clearance is denied.

12/08/2005

Applicant is a 47-year-old electrician who is working for a federal contractor waiting the outcome of his security clearance determination. Applicant has a long history of delinquent debts, and although he has been paying them off in the last year, he did nothing to resolve them until his debts became a security clearance issue. Applicant's wife is a citizen and her family are citizens and residents of Thailand. He and his wife provide financial support to the family in Thailand and maintain close contact. Applicant did not divulge his past arrests on his security clearance. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding Guidelines B, foreign influence, Guideline F, financial considerations, and Guideline E, personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

12/08/2005

The Applicant's foreign connections are not of a type that would cause him to be vulnerable to coercion or pressure. His contacts with his parents are infrequent at best, he is not close to them. The relationship with a Chinese businessman was in connection with a potential business deal that did not come to pass, and stopped in 2002. His trips to China were related to his employment by companies located in the United States. Adverse inference is overcome. Clearance is granted.

12/08/2005

Applicant is a 43-year-old building engineer who has worked for a federal contractor since 1999. Applicant has a history of delinquent debts totaling more than $50,000 that he is unwilling to pay, despite having considerable savings. Applicant falsely answered questions on his security clearance application. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding Guideline F, financial considerations, and Guideline E, personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

12/08/2005

Applicant has delinquent accounts, including two judgments that were entered against her, and others that were submitted for collection or charged off as bad debts. She entered into a repayment program in September 2004, through a credit counseling service, to satisfy many of the accounts, and has made payments on all but one of the other accounts. Applicant has mitigated the financial considerations security concern that existed in this case. Clearance is granted.

12/08/2005

Applicant's mother and five siblings are citizens and residents of China (PRC). His wife and son are Chinese citizens living in the U.S. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications relating to his relatives who are citizens of and living in China. Clearance is denied.

12/08/2005

Applicant's sister and his mother-in-law are citizen residents of Korea. His parents are registered alien residents of the U.S. and have spend 10 months of the year in Korea. Applicant mitigated foreign influence security concerns raised by these foreign associates. Clearance is granted.

12/08/2005

Applicant traveled twice to Vietnam to visit his ailing mother, who was a citizen of Canada living in Vietnam, and he provided her financial support. His mother recently died. Applicant's oldest brother is a citizen and resident of Vietnam, but he and Applicant are estranged and have virtually no contact. The security concern based on foreign influence is mitigated. Clearance is granted.

12/08/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. A review of the case file shows that Applicant had a reasonable opportunity to present evidence for the Administrative Judge to consider in his case. Because Applicant's challenge to the Judge's findings of fact is based solely on his proffer of new evidence, the Judge's findings of fact stand without the Board needing to review the record evidence and decide whether there is sufficient record evidence to support the Judge's findings of fact about Applicant's debts. Adverse decision affirmed.

12/08/2005

As a result of a general court-martial, Applicant was dismissed from the U.S. Air Force after being convicted of four specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer by making false official statements. Applicant failed to mitigate criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

12/08/2005

Applicant is a 45-year-old engineer, who twice inappropriately touched his 14-year-old daughter and once observed her taking a bath. Within a week of his actions, he reported his conduct to the child abuse hotline, child protective services, and the police. He moved out of the family home. He reported his actions to his employer. No charges have been filed against him by the police nor has any other agency taken action against him. He drinks wine nightly. In the past, he drank beer sometimes to excess. He has never been diagnosed as alcohol dependent or as an alcohol abuser. He has mitigated the government's security concerns regarding his sexual behavior and alcohol consumption. Clearance is granted.

12/08/2005

Though Applicant receives credit for completing all elements of the domestic violence program in 2002, he continues to minimize and/or shift the blame for his criminal behavior that occurred between April 1997 and February 2002. Applicant's good job performance over the years does not satisfy his ultimate burden of persuasion. Clearance is denied.

12/08/2005

Applicant is a 43-year-old employee of a defense contractor, who has successfully held a security clearance for about 25 years. He has a history of excessive alcohol consumption, including alcohol-related offenses away from work in 1992 and 2001. However, the incidents occurred a number for years ago, and there is no indication of recent problems with alcohol. Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his alcohol consumption. Clearance is granted.

12/08/2005

Applicant was born in Lebanon, but came to the U.S. in 1984 and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1996. He still has family ties and financial interests in Lebanon, and he renewed and used his Lebanese passport for six years after he was naturalized. In 2002, Applicant gave up his Lebanese citizenship and passport. That same year, he also pleaded guilty to driving under the influence (DUI). Security concerns about his criminal conduct and foreign preference are mitigated; however, Applicant has not mitigated concerns about foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

12/08/2005

Applicant has been arrested multiple times for driving while intoxicated and other traffic offenses. He had numerous tax liens and a foreclosure lawsuit filed against him. He deliberately either omitted accurate information or provided false information for security clearance applications he submitted in 1996 and 2002, and in a statement he submitted in 2003. He has failed to mitigate the security clearance concern caused by his personal conduct and the related criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

12/08/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns relating to his financial obligations when he provided credible evidence that he had initiated and carried out a good faith effort to settle or repay overdue accounts resulting from a business failure in approximately 1997/1998. However, he failed to mitigate security concerns related to his mother's Iranian citizenship and her residency in Iran. Clearance is denied.

12/08/2005

Applicant failed to resolve $8,700 owed to nine creditors. Even though Applicant has been aware of the government concern about his finances since June 2002, he has not paid any of the debts listed in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from Applicant's unpaid debts. Clearance is denied.

12/07/2005

Applicant is a 23-year-old employee of a defense contractor, who seeks a security clearance. When he was between 16 and 18 years old, Applicant was convicted of three separate offenses: driving under the influence of alcohol, reckless driving, and possession of marijuana. Since 2000, Applicant successfully completed his alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs, held steady employment, and accepted great personal responsibility. His supervisors, co-workers, and friends praise his character, responsibility, and trustworthiness. Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his history of alcohol consumption and criminal conduct. Clearance is granted.

12/07/2005

Applicant successfully rebutted the allegation that he deliberately falsified his security-clearance application. But he is unable to successfully mitigate the foreign influence security concern due to his family ties to the People's Republic of China (PRC or China), a country that is ruled by an authoritarian government with a poor record of human rights. Clearance is denied.

12/07/2005

This 53-year-old male has a history of drug abuse beginning in the early 1970s and continuing until at least January 2001. He used illegal drugs (1) more than two decades after telling the Defense Security Service that he would not do so, and (2) for several years after receiving a security clearance in 1997. He was involved in non alcohol-related criminal activity in 1973, 1999, and 2002. His probation in the last matter lasted into 2003. A pattern of questionable conduct, occurring over most of his adult life, has been established. Mitigation and extenuation have not been shown. Clearance is denied.

12/07/2005

Applicant's financial indebtedness remains delinquent and he has not made a good faith effort to resolve his debts. His intentional falsifications on his security clearance application are a violation of Title 18, USC 1001, a felony. His arrests in 1999 and 2001, have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.

12/06/2005

Applicant, a United States citizen, has spent all but the first two years of his life in the United States. He has immediate family members who are citizens and residents of Israel. None of them has ever been employed by the Government of Israel or is in a position to be exploited by Israel in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to these family members and his loyalty to the United States. Applicant's extremely strong attachment to the United States and his minimal ties to Israel makes it highly unlikely that he would respond favorably to any efforts to act against United States' interests. In a Security Clearance Application (SCA) supplied to the Government in March 2003, Applicant denied that he had ever had a clearance or access authorization denied or revoked, which was correct at the time that he completed the SCA. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted.

12/06/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Absent a showing that Applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence for the Administrative Judge to consider, Applicant is not entitled to another opportunity to present evidence on his behalf. Given the record evidence concerning Applicant's contacts and ties with his mother and in-laws who are Iranian citizens and who reside in Iran, Applicant has not shown the Judge acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner with respect to Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1. Apart from one harmless error, the Judge's application of Foreign Influence Disqualifying Condition 2 is sustainable. A past decision to grant or continue a security clearance does not give rise to any right or vested interest in a security clearance. Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed.

12/06/2005

Applicant is collaterally estopped from challenging the validity of his 1996 felony conviction in these proceedings. The SOR issued to Applicant placed him on adequate notice of the allegations against him. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. The Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's unpaid court-ordered restitution provide rational support for the Judge's unfavorable conclusions under Guideline J. Applicant is not entitled to any delayed or deferred adjudication of his security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.

12/05/2005

The Applicant has had four alcohol-related arrests, including two for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, from 1974 to 2002. He continued to drink until mid-2004. Under the circumstances, insufficient time has passed to show that the Applicant can remain abstinent from alcohol abuse. Adverse inference is not overcome. Clearance is denied.

12/05/2005

The Applicant has renounced his Israeli and Mexican citizenship, and surrendered his Israeli and Mexican passports in compliance with the Money Memorandum ("Guide to DoD Central Adjudication Facilities (CAF) Clarifying the Application of Foreign Preference Adjudication Guidelines," dated September 1, 2000). His mother, sister and in-laws are citizens of and reside in Mexico. His 77 year old mother was a housewife. He manages her extensive portfolio, which is nearly all in American assets. He has little contact with his sister and in-laws. The Applicant was employed in Israel at an Israeli university while a graduate student, and was employed by an Israeli defense contractor, working on a joint effort with the U.S. Navy. He served four months in the Israeli military before becoming a U.S. citizen. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

12/05/2005

Applicant is a 46-year-old linguist/recruiter born in what was the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia. He came to the U.S. in the late 1980s, married, and became a U.S. citizen in 1997. He worked for the U.S. Government for about 10 years in broadcasting and received a security clearance in 1995. He is employed by a major defense contractor and traveled to his area of origin on extensive business trips, always maintaining his residence in the U.S. Applicant maintains contact with his elderly parents and a brother who still reside in Kosovo, but his emotional ties are with his family in the U.S. He has been recognized for his invaluable service to U.S. interests. Applicant is aware of his responsibilities in protecting U.S. secrets and avers an intent to report any improper contacts. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted.

12/05/2005

Applicant is a native of the Republic of China (Taiwan) who became a naturalized United States citizen in June 1987. His parents, mother-in-law, and three siblings are resident citizens of Taiwan. The foreign influence concerns presented by their foreign citizenship and residency are mitigated as these family members are not agents of a foreign power nor are they in positions where they are likely to be exploited. Clearance is granted.

12/05/2005

Applicant is a 25-year-old systems engineer for a defense contractor. While in high school and college, and shortly thereafter, Applicant abused a wide variety of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, ecstasy, psilocybin, Valium, Xanex, and Ketamine. Applicant stopped using all drugs other than marijuana in about 2000, and discontinued his use of marijuana in July 2003. Since then, he has remained drug-free and has excelled at his job. Although Applicant shows great promise, at this time he has failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his long history of drug involvement. Clearance is denied.

12/05/2005

Applicant is a naturalized United States citizen whose wife is a citizen of the People's Republic of China (China) with permanent resident alien status in the United States. Her mother and father are citizens and residents of China, and she speaks with them by telephone on a regular basis. He has failed to mitigate the foreign influence security concerns that result from his family ties to China. Clearance is denied.

12/05/2005

Applicant accrued over $21,000 in delinquent personal debt through credit cards, retail store accounts, late mortgage payments, and car repossessions. While his financial troubles resulted in part from unexpected reduction in household income, he was also remiss in his personal financial management. Despite realizing a $30,000 net profit from the sale of his house in 2004, he has made little voluntary progress in paying or otherwise resolving his obligations. Clearance is denied.

12/02/2005

Department Counsel's ability to make a strong argument for an alternate interpretation of the record evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Administrative Judge weighed the evidence improperly or made erroneous findings. Judges have broad latitude and discretion in how they write their decisions, subject to the requirements of the Directive and basic concepts of due process. The inapplicability of certain Adjudicative Guidelines mitigating conditions does not preclude a Judge from considering whether an applicant has demonstrated extenuation or mitigation under the general factors of Directive, Section 6.3 and Adjudicative Guidelines, Item E2.2.1. The Board does not have to agree with the Judge's findings or conclusions to decide that Department Counsel has failed to demonstrate the Judge misapplied the Adjudicative Guidelines. Although Department Counsel strongly disagrees with the Judge's analysis, Department Counsel has not shown that the Judge engaged in an improper piecemeal analysis of the case. Favorable decision affirmed.

11/30/2005

Applicant mitigated foreign influence security concerns over his family ties in Afghanistan. Only a brother, an uncle, a cousin, and his wife's family remain citizens of Afghanistan and reside there. Applicant has strong ties to the U.S. and has demonstrated working as a translator for U.S. interests in Afghanistan that he can and will put U.S. security interests ahead of his family ties. Applicant's assurances that he would put U.S. interests over any Afghani family ties are supported by his positive character and work assessments. Clearance is granted.

11/30/2005

Applicant is a 45-year-old manufacturing engineer who has worked for a federal contractor since 1984. Applicant falsified information on his security clearance application regarding his drug history and criminal conduct. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct, and Guideline J, criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

Applicant has a history of delinquent debts for credit card accounts, a cell phone bill, and federal and state income taxes. He falsely answered "no" to questions about delinquent debts on his security clearance application (SF-86) and twice made false statements to a security investigator about payments on his delinquent state income taxes. Security concerns based on financial considerations and personal conduct are not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

Applicant has a long history of excessive alcohol consumption between about 1999 and 2004. He participated in numerous alcohol treatment programs between about 2001 and 2004, but resumed drinking alcohol to excess. Medical authorities diagnosed Applicant as being alcohol dependent on several occasions. In March 2004, Applicant drove a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and was arrested, charged, and convicted of the offense. Thereafter, he successfully completed additional alcohol treatment programs. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his alcohol consumption. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

The Applicant's three arrests - one which was dismissed, one which was for traffic offenses and one for possession of counterfeit food stamps - have been mitigated by his otherwise exemplary personal and professional life. The evidence supports a finding that the Applicant did not intentionally falsify his security clearance questionnaire. Adverse clearance is overcome. Clearance is granted.

11/30/2005

11/30/2005

Due to persistent efforts of Applicant and his wife, seven delinquent debts have been paid or settled even with Applicant's poor health and recurring mechanical problems with his truck. Because of the commendable efforts of Applicant and his wife in paying past due debts, I am confident they will continue to pay off the remaining creditors while ensuring these problems do not recur. Clearance is granted.

11/30/2005

Applicant was born in Taiwan in 1969. He came to the United States in 1981 to attend school. He has resided here since then and became a naturalized citizen in 1990. His mother, sister and brother are naturalized citizens of the United States. His father is a citizen and resident of Taiwan, and also has status as a permanent resident of the United States. Applicant owns property in Taiwan. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from foreign influence. Clearance is granted.

11/30/2005

Applicant's ex-wife, a Russian citizen and a permanent U.S. resident, has custody of their six-year-old son, to whom Applicant is very devoted. Applicant's current wife is a Ukrainian citizen and a permanent U.S. resident. Her mother is a Ukrainian citizen residing in Russia. Her father and brother are Russian citizens and residents. The security concern based on foreign influence is not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

Applicant is a 56-year-old engineer who has lived abroad most of his adult life since age 23 first in England and since 1977 in Israel, where he became a citizen and served in the military. His work in Israel was for an Israeli defense contractor. He has two daughters who are adults living in Israel both of whom served in the military. He has three children in the U.S. His wife and all five children have dual nationality and hold Israeli passports. He attempted to surrender his passport to the Israeli Consulate but they have advised him that they are holding it and he will need it for travel to Israel. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

Applicant is unable to successfully mitigate the foreign influence security concern. His wife is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Italy. She is employed by the Italian Embassy in the U.S., and she has a security clearance for her employment with the embassy. Applicant also has family ties to Italy via his parents-in-law who are citizens of and residents in Italy. In addition, Applicant's wife had a close relationship with a high-level official at the Italian Embassy. She used that relationship to borrow $65,000 from the official so Applicant could lend the money to a friend involved in an overseas business venture, which was a scam resulting in an $82,000 loss to Applicant. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

Applicant's disagreement with the weight that the Administrative Judge gave to certain evidence does not demonstrate the Judge simply ignored that evidence. The Judge was not required, as a matter of law, to conclude that Applicant's scheduling a meeting with an IRS agent was sufficient to demonstrate mitigation of Applicant's unpaid federal taxes. Applicant is not entitled to have his case remanded so that he can present additional evidence for the Judge to consider in his case. Adverse decision affirmed.

11/30/2005

Applicant, a naturalized citizen of the U.S. who has immediate family members and a mother-in-law who are citizens and residents of Taiwan, mitigates any potential risk to undue foreign influence concerns under Guideline B. Taiwan, while a country reported to gather economic and proprietary intelligence against the U.S. and its companies, retains strong mutual strategic interests with the U.S. and is a county with a history of democratic traditions and respect for human rights and the rule of law. Applicant's Taiwan family members are neither agents of the Taiwan government or shown to be in a position that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to his family members and the U.S. Clearance is granted.

11/30/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate Guideline B security concerns resulting from his close ties to family members who are citizens of Afghanistan and Guideline F security concerns resulting from a history of financial over-extension. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

Applicant had considerable debt from the failure of his businesses, and engaged in criminal conduct by failing to appear in court and shoplifting. Applicant mitigated the financial considerations and criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is granted.

11/30/2005

Applicant is a native of the Republic of China (Taiwan) who became a naturalized United States citizen in September 1994. From July 1994 to December 1999, he worked as a consultant in the United States for his sister's engineering corporation based in Taiwan. A dedicated employee for a U.S. defense contractor since January 2001, foreign influence concerns persist because of the Taiwanese residency and citizenship of family members, including his brother who works for a government agency in Taiwan. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

Applicant, a 55-year-old security specialist working on contract for the Department of State, effectively mitigated security concerns arising from a continuing romantic relationship with a Russian woman whom he met while on a project for his employer, by reporting the contacts and establishing his own extensive record since holding a security clearance received in 1988. Based on a whole person analysis, clearance is granted.

11/30/2005

Applicant experienced financial difficulties that began in 1999 which were compounded in 2001 when she was unemployed for about three months. Her current debts consist primarily of consumer credit accounts exceeding $14,500.00. Applicant has never directly implemented a repayment plan with any of the creditors or through any credit counseling service. She has never applied for bankruptcy relief, and no payments have been made against the accounts for several years. Applicant has failed to successfully mitigate the security concerns raised by her financial problems. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

Applicant deliberately falsified his SF 86 by listing only one of his five alcohol- or drug-related arrests, and by failing to disclose his use of illegal drugs. He also deliberately falsified information about those same issues when he gave a sworn statement to a Defense Security Service (DDS) agent. In March 2005, Applicant was discharged through Chapter 7 bankruptcy of the delinquent debts he had accrued through 2002. His financial standing is now much improved and the security concerns about his past debt are mitigated. However, Applicant failed to mitigate the concerns about his criminal and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

Applicant has more than $29,000 in delinquent debts. He filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection and his payment plan was approved in July 2005, shortly before the hearing. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his financial situation and his deliberate falsification of his security clearance application about his financial situation. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

Applicant, a test operator for a defense contractor since August 1974, has a history of financial problems, including unpaid federal tax debt due to insufficient tax withholdings. His ability to repay his debt had been impacted by the loss of income of his spouse, who is collecting social security disability, and ongoing medical expenses not covered by insurance. Financial considerations concerns are mitigated where he is receiving financial counseling through his church and has retained the services of a debt resolution firm that is negotiating with his creditors on his behalf. While he did not report a 2001 judgment for rent and possession on his security clearance application, he did not knowingly and willfully conceal that information from the government. Clearance is granted.

11/30/2005

Applicant is a 53-year-old naturalized United States citizen since 1982. He was born in Hong Kong. He married a U.S. citizen and his three children were born in the U.S. During the past 30 years, he has visited Hong Kong about eight times, which included attending birthday parties for his elderly parents, visiting his hospitalized mother, and attending the funerals of his parents. His sister and brother are both citizens and residents of Hong Kong. Another brother, a citizen of Hong Kong, resides in Canada. Applicant is not vulnerable to foreign influence because of his strong attachment to the U.S. and because his family is not in a position to be exploited in a way that could force him to choose between loyalty and these family members and his loyalty to the U.S. By mitigating these foreign influence security concerns, Applicant demonstrated it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance. Clearance is granted.

11/30/2005

Applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependent in 2002. Thereafter, his attempts at recovery were uneven and included a brief use of marijuana in early 2002 as a substitute for alcohol. However, he has been drug and alcohol free since September 2004, due in large measure to his commitment to and active participation in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). He has mitigated the security concerns about alcohol consumption and illegal drug use. Clearance is granted.

11/30/2005

Applicant has delinquent debts and unpaid taxes that he has done little to satisfy. He deliberately failed to file income tax returns, and pay the federal and state income taxes he owed for the 2000-03 tax years. He has failed to mitigate the financial considerations and criminal conduct security concerns that exist in this case. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

From 1976 until 1984, Applicant smoked marijuana and experimented with multiple other drugs as a high school and college student. After college, from 1984 until 1997, he continued to smoke marijuana. During part of this time, he held a security clearance. He intentionally withheld the information related to his drug use when he completed his security clearance applications in 1990 and 2002. He did reveal his 1998 arrest for driving under the influence, but did not reveal that he was also charged with possession of marijuana. Applicant has mitigated the government's security concerns under Guidelines G and J, but has failed to overcome the security concerns as to Guidelines E and H. Clearance is denied.

11/30/2005

Applicant was arrested and charged with two second degree sexual felony offenses in 1987 and cited for threatening and intimidating acts in 1997. He pled guilty to a third degree sexual felony offense in 1988 and was placed on probation. The court dismissed the case related to the 1997 charges. The record shows no further similar activity. He inadvertently failed to disclose the 1997 citation in his security application. The security concerns raised by his criminal conduct have been mitigated by the passage of time and his successful rehabilitation. Likewise, the security concerns raised under Guideline E, Personal Conduct, have been mitigated. Clearance is granted.

11/30/2005

The Administrative Judge's findings of fact about Applicant's history of indebtedness reflect permissible interpretations of the record evidence. The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge was not required, as a matter of law, to conclude Applicant's history of indebtedness was fully mitigated by application of Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions 1, 3, and 6. Applicant's disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the record evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

11/29/2005

Although Applicant's past financial problems raised security concerns because of his delay in resolving his debts of $30,000 to four creditors, he has mitigated these issues and now has demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve his debts and reform his financial practices. In addition, Applicant has a stable job where he is highly regarded. He rebutted security concerns over his past personal conduct in failing to disclose financial issues on his 2003 security clearance application as he had no intent to falsify. Clearance is granted.

11/29/2005

Applicant's mother and older brother are citizens and residents of Jordan. His younger brother is a citizen of Jordan residing in Syria. Applicant traveled to Jordan several times to visit his mother, and traveled once to Syria to visit her when she was residing there with Applicant's younger brother. Security concerns based on foreign influence are not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

11/29/2005

Applicant drank alcohol and used illegal drugs for recreational purposes as a teenager. In 1998, she pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia and under age consumption of alcohol. By age 20, she ceased using all illegal drugs except marijuana, which she stopped using in 2002 at age 23. She suffers from sleep problems, which cause her to arrive at work late. She has mitigated and overcome the government's security concerns under Guidelines E and H. Clearance is granted.

11/29/2005

Applicant was convicted of conversion of government property in 1998, sentenced to five years supervised probation, and ordered to pay restitution to the United States in the amount of $11,927.27. Clearance is denied.

11/29/2005

Applicant has mitigated security concerns regarding foreign influence arising out of his marriage in 2003 to a citizen of Lebanon who has relatives living there by holding a security clearance for 27 years without adverse information and showing clear knowledge of security requirements. Applicant has had relatives of his own in Lebanon since he first held a security clearance without any adverse consequences. Clearance is granted.

11/29/2005

Over a period of 20years, Applicant was involved in nine alcohol-related incidents. Applicant is still on probation for his sixth DUI conviction. Though Applicant is beginning to understand his periodic, excessive consumption of alcohol is his primary problem, there is too much evidence of denial and minimization regarding his abstinence and a future of sobriety to warrant access to classified information at this time. Clearance is denied.

11/29/2005

Applicant is a citizen of the United States of South Korean ancestry. She has mitigated the security concern alleged based upon her having immediate family members and friends who are citizens and residents of South Korea. Clearance is granted.

11/29/2005

Applicant is a 41-year-old defense contractor employee. Between 1997 and 2001, the police arrested him three times for lewd and lascivious behavior in a public place. He pled guilty to these charges. The court fined him and sentenced him to community service and unsupervised probation. He has not mitigated the government's security concerns regarding his sexual behavior and criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

11/29/2005

During a two-week period in August 1991, Applicant sexually molested his eight-year-old daughter at least twice. In October 1991, he was charged with a felony sexual offense, but pled guilty in March 1992 to a lesser included misdemeanor sexual offense. Applicant deliberately omitted the felony charge from his 2001 security clearance, and deliberately falsified the details of his criminal sexual conduct in a May 2003 signed, sworn statement to an agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS). Clearance is denied.

11/29/2005

Considering the record as a whole, the Administrative Judge's material findings of fact about Applicant's history of indebtedness are sustainable. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. The Judge's conclusions about Applicant's history of indebtedness are not arbitrary or capricious in light of the record evidence as a whole. The Judge's finding of falsification is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed.

11/29/2005

Applicant accrued over $46,000 in delinquent or past due debts. Before the Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued, Applicant was already acting to pay or otherwise resolve her past due obligations. As of her hearing in this matter, Applicant had satisfactorily addressed all of the delinquencies alleged in the SOR. Her current financial status is sound and her credit good. She has mitigated the security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations), and her request for a security clearance is granted.

11/29/2005

Applicant is a 39-year-old program analyst who has worked for a federal contractor since 2000. He held a secret security clearance from 1991 to 1997, and obtained a top secret clearance in 2001. Applicant used drugs from 1984 to 1998, concurrent with holding a secret clearance. He failed to divulge his past drug involvement on his security clearance application. He made false statements regarding his drug history. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement, and Guideline E, personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

11/28/2005

Applicant's use of marijuana has been mitigated by his expressed and demonstrated commitment to a drug free lifestyle. Clearance is granted.

11/28/2005

The Applicant's casual and infrequent foreign contacts with his father, mother and other relatives in Russia pose no security risk. He is no longer associated with anyone else in Russia or with the Russian government and cannot be coerced or blackmailed. He has surrendered his Russian passport to the proper authorities and it has been cancelled. He has renounced his Russian citizenship. Clearance is granted.

11/28/2005

Applicant's history of criminal conduct, involving a felony conviction for Burglary in 1999, and her continued financial indebtedness has not been mitigated. Clearance is denied.

11/28/2005

Applicant's delinquent financial indebtedness remains current and he has not made a good faith effort to resolve his debts. His intentional falsifications on his security clearance application are a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, and have not been mitigated. Clearance is denied.

11/28/2005

The presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence is not rebutted by Applicant's proffer of new evidence on appeal or his disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the record evidence. The Judge's finding that Applicant falsified a security clearance application is sustainable in light of the record evidence. The Judge's finding that Applicant's episodic alcohol abuse contributed to his criminal conduct is sustainable in light of the record evidence. The Judge's findings about Applicant's episodic alcohol abuse reflect a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.

11/28/2005

Between 1971 and 1997, Applicant had numerous run-ins with the law; however, he was last convicted in 1993. Applicant mitigated the criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is granted.

11/25/2005

Applicant is a 52-year-old analyst/engineer who has worked for the same federal contractor since 2003, but worked for federal contractors in the past, and held a security clearance for 16 years. Applicant had a series of unfortunate events intervene in his life, to include over two years of unemployment, divorce, injury, accident, and identity theft. Applicant's financial situation was fragile, but he was unaware certain debts had not been paid until his security clearance became an issue. Applicant has aggressively either resolved his delinquent debts, has payment plans, or his insurance company is addressing them with regard to his medical expenses. Applicant's debts became delinquent subsequent to him filling out his security clearance application. He has successfully mitigated Guidelines F and E. Clearance is granted.

11/25/2005

Applicant has a record of alcohol-related criminal conduct from 1981 to 1999, including five DUI convictions. He completed ten sessions of court-ordered counseling for substance abuse in 2000 and abstained for two years thereafter only to resume drinking in December 2002. While there is no evidence he has consumed alcohol to intoxication since, there is a risk of recurrence of excessive alcohol consumption and related criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

11/25/2005

Applicant was born in Hong Kong in 1978 and immigrated to the U.S. with his parents and brother in 1995. He became a U.S. citizen in 2001. At his hearing he successfully mitigated the security concerns alleged in the Statement of Reasons under Guideline C, Foreign Preference, and Guideline B, Foreign Influence. Clearance is granted.

11/25/2005

Applicant is a 56-year-old truck driver who has worked for a federal contractor since 2002. Applicant has a 20-year history of criminal offenses. Applicant failed to provide his criminal history on his security clearance application as required. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding Guidelines J and E. Clearance is denied.

11/25/2005

Applicant used marijuana on a number of occasions, including while holding a security clearance between 1969 and at least 2001. He tested positive for having the marijuana metabolite in his system in April 1999, was referred by his employer for outpatient drug treatment, tested positive again in 2001, and resigned from his job rather than being terminated. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns that arise from his use of marijuana. Clearance is denied.

11/25/2005

Although Applicant's past financial problems raised security concerns because of his delay in resolving his debts of $35,000 to ten creditors plus a $88,000 judgment in 2002 pertaining to a foreclosure on his house, he has mitigated these issues which were largely created by circumstances beyond his control. He now has demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve his debts and has reformed his financial practices. In addition, Applicant has a stable job where he is highly regarded. He rebutted security concerns over his past personal conduct in failing to disclose financial issues on his 2000 security clearance application as he had no intent to falsify and thought he had resolved all of his financial matters at that time. Clearance is granted.

11/25/2005

Applicant's history of alcohol-related incidents between 1997 and 2002 has not been mitigated by his favorable character evidence. Although Applicant's most recent alcohol-related offense occurred in March 2002, Applicant's internally ambiguous and independently discredited testimony, coupled with the lack of strong independent evidence, undermine his current claim his alcohol consumption is under control. Clearance is denied.

11/25/2005

Applicant is 26 years old and seeks a security clearance in order to work for a federal contractor. In 1997, 1998, and 2002, he was arrested and convicted of charges involving theft and alcohol. On two separate security clearance applications, he failed to disclose criminal charges from 1997 and 1998, but did disclose a 2002 conviction for driving while impaired by alcohol. He denied any intention to falsify information to the government. Application did not mitigate the security concerns related to his criminal history or personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

11/25/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns arising from his failure to resolve his delinquent debts by paying them. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from his past financial considerations. Clearance is granted.

11/23/2005

Applicant was born in Israel of Israeli parents and is now a naturalized U.S. citizen. He renounced his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport. His mother, two sisters, an uncle, and four childhood friends are citizens and residents of Israel. Applicant visits his mother, who is in a nursing home and mentally deteriorating, once or twice a year. He contacts his sisters, uncle, and childhood friends while in Israel, but this contact is ancillary to visiting his mother. None of his immediate family members are connected to the Israeli government or businesses likely to be involved in economic or industrial espionage. Security concerns based on foreign preference and foreign influence are mitigated. Clearance is granted.

11/23/2005

Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in 1993, and now has numerous delinquent accounts that have been charged off, submitted for collection, or on which judgments have been obtained. He has a criminal history that began in 1977 and continued until at least December 2001. Clearance is denied.

11/23/2005

Applicant is a 51-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She worked for the United States government at a military installation until it was closed through a base realignment and closure. Applicant and her husband eventually found employment at another government installation, but had incurred delinquent debts as a result of the closure and move. Applicant employed a credit counseling organization, and has made constant payments on her debts in an effort to pay them off. Applicant has established her good-faith efforts to pay creditors or otherwise resolve indebtedness, and mitigated the security concerns for financial considerations. Clearance is granted.

11/23/2005

Applicant has a record of alcohol-related arrests and convictions. Although he has moderated his alcohol consumption to some extent, he denies having a drinking problem and continues to drink to the point of intoxication two or three times a year. The security concern based on alcohol consumption is not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

11/23/2005

Applicant's mother, parents-in-law, and brother are citizens of and reside in the People's Republic of China (PRC) Applicant failed to mitigate the resulting security concern under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). Clearance is denied.

11/23/2005

Applicant, a 26-year-old man, is seeking to obtain a security clearance. A security concern is raised by his marijuana use on at most five occasions while in college and his marijuana use in February 2003 and then again in August or September 2003 after he had completed a security-clearance application. Applicant has successfully mitigated the security concern because (1) his marijuana use is not recent, (2) he intends not to abuse any drugs in the future, and (3) his history of marijuana use is relatively minor and insignificant. Clearance is granted.

11/23/2005

Applicant is a 37-year-old employee of a federal contractor with a history of tax problems beginning in 1996, some of which are attributable to her husband's failed business. Since 2000, Applicant has resolved two tax liens; however, a state tax lien remains outstanding, as well as unpaid federal taxes. She denied that she deliberately failed to disclose tax liens, claiming one was related to her husband's business and the other was unknown to her. She failed to mitigate security concerns arising from financial considerations and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

11/23/2005

Applicant was charged with either Drunk Driving or Driving Under the Influence on three occasions between 1989 and 1999. He intentionally failed to disclose two of those charges in three separate security clearance applications he submitted and when asked about them during an interview conducted by a Defense Security Service Special Agent. He also has numerous delinquent accounts that he also failed to disclose as required. Clearance is denied.

11/23/2005

Applicant is a 45-year-old test engineer who has worked for a government contractor since 2002. He is retired from the Marine Corps after 20 years of honorable service. Applicant is married with two teenage children. Applicant accessed on his government furnished computer pornographic websites. Applicant was punished by his employer. Applicant had never accessed such sites before his actions or since. Applicant told his wife, children, in-laws and friends of his transgressions. Applicant has admitted his error in judgment. Applicant has successfully mitigating the security concerns regarding Guideline M, misuse of information technology systems, and Guideline E, personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

11/23/2005

Applicant has mitigated security concerns about his alcohol-related arrests and treatment as he provided evidence that he has reformed his conduct. He has totally abstained from drinking since 2002 and has changed his lifestyle. He both successfully completed his alcohol treatment in January 2004 and his probation. He performs well on the job without any evidence of an alcohol problem. He established he had no intent to falsify his 2000 security application. Applicant's alcohol consumption and personal conduct are no longer security concerns. Clearance is granted.

11/23/2005

Applicant, a 32-year-old laborer on construction projects, mitigated security concerns of criminal activity (three arrests and one conviction) over six-year period ending in 2000, and drug involvement during same period, by sufficient elapsed time, changed conduct during past five years, steady employment, and recommendations of employers. Also, he mitigated concerns over failure to report the arrest that resulted in conviction by reporting fully the other arrests, omission of favorable disposition of one arrest, and lack of sophistication in use of government forms. Clearance is granted.

11/23/2005

Applicant abused marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol to the point of clinically diagnosed dependence. Abstinent from all illegal drugs since 1984, he procured marijuana in 2001 for his spouse's medicinal purposes, but does not intend to use illegal drugs himself, thereby mitigating the drug involvement concerns. He failed to mitigate the alcohol consumption concerns because he relapsed into abusive drinking in 2001 after about 17 years of sobriety. Clearance is denied.

11/23/2005

The Government has not established a case under the criminal conduct guideline because there is no direct evidence indicating the items in question were stolen by Applicant. On the other hand, sufficient evidence from interviewed supervisors/coworkers indicates there was a policy of transferring all serviceable items to the re-utilization office or placing them on pallets for redistribution. Applicant's failure to comply with the policy has not been mitigated by his favorable character statements and performance evaluations. Clearance is denied.

11/23/2005

Although Applicant promised in 2002 to resolve his debts, he only resolved some of them and developed no plan to pay or resolve the majority of the delinquent debts reported on his credit reports. While he disputed or questioned several debts, he did not provide any evidence to support a contention that he does not owe these creditors where the debts are documented in credit reports. Further, he did not show he had challenged the accuracy of these credit reporting agencies on any of these questioned debts. Under the circumstances, Applicant failed to initiate a good-faith effort to resolve this indebtedness. Also, he deliberately falsified his answers on his 2001security clearance application by failing to disclose these financial issues. Clearance is denied.

11/22/2005

Applicant is a 56-year-old engineer. He was born in Taiwan in 1949, came to the U.S. in 1973, and became a citizen in 1985. He is married and has two grown children. He obtained a Taiwanese passport in 2000 for the purpose of being eligible to vote in a presidential election. His intent was to promote democracy in Taiwan. He used his U.S. passport to enter Taiwan on that occasion and all others. He has surrendered the Taiwanese passport and renounced his Taiwanese citizenship. He has two brothers and two sisters in Taiwan, but the relationships are casual, infrequent, and minimal n comparison with his American family. He fully understands his obligations to protect U.S. interests. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted.

11/22/2005

Applicant is a 47-year-old engineering technician who has worked for a federal contractor since 2002. Applicant had seven arrests from March 1987 to May 2003. Three of the arrests were for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. Applicant failed to list all his criminal conduct on his security clearance application, as required. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline J, criminal conduct, and Guideline E, personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

11/22/2005

Applicant's strong disagreement with the Administrative Judge's weighing of the record evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered the record evidence as a whole. Board will not disturb a Judge's weighing of the record evidence unless there has been a showing that the Judge acted in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. The absence of security violations does not preclude an unfavorable decision based on other grounds. Failure to amend the SOR was not fatal in this case because Applicant was on adequate notice that his ties to family in Iran was an issue. Adverse decision affirmed.

11/22/2005

The presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence is not rebutted or overcome by a showing that the Judge did not give certain record evidence as much weight as the appealing party would have liked. The mere presence or absence of Adjudicative Guidelines disqualifying or mitigating conditions is not dispositive of a case. In addition to applying pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines, a Judge must evaluate an applicant's security eligibility in light of the record evidence as a whole and in terms of the general factors of Directive, Section 6.3 and Adjudicative Guidelines, Item E2.2.1. In addition to Applicant's admissions that she lied to an investigator in June 2002 about her 1991 larceny incident, there is sufficient circumstantial record evidence to support the Judge's findings that Applicant falsified her security clearance application. Applicant has not shown that the Judge's conclusions under Guideline E or Guideline J are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

11/21/2005

The Applicant has renounced his Israeli citizenship, and has surrendered his Israeli passport in Compliance with the Money Memorandum ("Guide to DoD Central Adjudication Facilities (CAF) Clarifying the Application of Foreign Preference Adjudication Guidelines," dated September 1, 2000). He has an American son, who resides in Israel. He is a student. The Applicant is not subject to coercion vis-a-vis his son. The Applicant traveled to Israel in 2002, in 2003, and the last time, in 2004. He used his Israeli passport to exit and enter Israel in 2003 and 2004. All three trips were for pleasure to visit his son. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

11/20/2005

Applicant, a natural born United States citizen, married a Russian citizen in September 1999, whom he met while she was attending college in the U.S. on a student visa. He and his wife are now separated, have filed for divorce, have no intention of reconciling, and anticipate the divorce being final by the end of 2005. Applicant has mitigated the foreign influence security concern that existed in this case. Clearance is granted.

11/18/2005

Applicant is a dual citizen of Brazil and the United States who is required by Brazilian law to use a Brazilian passport to enter that country. He is unwilling to surrender his Brazilian passport because he needs it to visit his aged and ailing father who resides in Brazil. Accordingly, Applicant is unable to mitigate the foreign preference security concern that exists in this case. Clearance is denied.

11/18/2005

Even if an Administrative Judge concludes that a particular Adjudicative Guidelines disqualifying or mitigating condition is applicable, the Judge must still consider what weight it is reasonably entitled to be given in light of other applicable provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines and the record evidence as a whole. Given the record evidence in this case, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude Applicant's history of financial difficulties was not sufficiently mitigated by application of Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions 3 and 6. Adverse decision affirmed.

11/16/2005

The Applicant has serious, delinquent, Federal tax liabilities which cannot be resolved in the near future. Her financial affairs are not yet in order. In addition, the Applicant intentionally falsified a Security Clearance Application concerning the true state of her bankruptcy cases and the fact that the Federal and state governments had filed numerous liens against her property. Adverse inference is not overcome. Clearance is denied.

11/16/2005

The Applicant's parents are citizens of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), but have permanent resident status and reside in the U.S. They are retired college professors. Her brother, an engineer, is a citizen of and resides in the PRC. He has been approved for permanent resident status in the U.S. The Applicant's mother-in-law and three siblings-in-law are citizens of and reside in the PRC. Her mother-in-law is a housewife, as is her one sister-in-law. One brother-in-law is retired from village work, and the other is an engineer. The Applicant has not seen any of her in-laws since 1994. None of the Applicant's foreign relatives is connected with any foreign government or subject to coercion. The Applicant visited the PRC in 1994 and 1998. She plans no further visits to the PRC. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

11/16/2005

Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's history of financial difficulties are reasonably supported by the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.

11/15/2005

Applicant is 38 years old and works in an administrative position for a defense contractor. Applicant claimed she misread several employment forms she completed in 2003, and denied misrepresenting her college education on them. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding her personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

11/15/2005

After Applicant left the Army, he accumulated considerable debt due to expenses incurred with going to school and expenses for his family. In January 2004, Applicant obtained a new job. Since that time he has made substantial efforts to resolve all of his debts. Clearance is granted.

11/15/2005

This 44-year-old Physicist is a native born American, who met his future wife, a native of the PRC, when both were at the same U.S. university in the mid 1990s,. They were married in 1996. She works for a U.S. university in a position that sends her to the PRC for period totaling about half the year, during which times Applicant sometimes travels there to see her. Her elderly parents and her brother in the PRC do not speak much English and Applicant speaks little Chinese. Their relationship is warm, but not emotionally close. Applicant is aware of his responsibilities in protecting U.S. secrets and avers an intent to report any improper contacts. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted.

11/15/2005

Applicant was in arrears on four debts totaling $20,862.00 raising a financial considerations concern. Although he has been successful in paying down a significant portion of his debt, the recency and amount of debts coupled with his inability to fully explain the status of all debts remains a concern. Applicant's wife is a citizen resident of the Ukraine, raising a foreign influence concern. He has not presented sufficient evidence to mitigate this concern. Clearance is denied.

11/15/2005

Applicant has a lengthy history of alcohol-related incidents. He was evaluated as alcohol dependent after a 2002 conviction for driving while intoxicated. He resumed drinking as soon as he completed a court-ordered DWI education course. Although he claims he has reduced his consumption of alcohol, sufficient time has not elapsed, in light of his alcohol dependence, to ensure his alcohol consumption does not represent a security risk. Clearance is denied.

11/15/2005

Applicant is married to a woman who was born and raised in Argentina. She is a permanent U.S. resident. Her parents and siblings are citizen residents of Argentina. After Applicant retired from the U.S. Navy, he lived in Argentina for more than seven years while completing his master's degree and trying to find employment in international business. Applicant mitigated the foreign influence and foreign preference security concerns. Clearance is granted.

11/15/2005

Applicant is 24 years old and works as a senior data entry technician for a defense contractor. On two occasions in 2003, Applicant failed to properly secure her computer hard drive which contained classified material. Applicant was young and new to the job at the time and has taken steps to prevent a security lapse in the future. Applicant mitigated the security concerns regarding security violations and personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

11/15/2005

The Applicant sought and was granted political asylum in the U.S. He was involved in the pro-democracy movement vis-a-vis the People's Republic of China (PRC). His elderly parents, although citizens of the PRC, reside in the U.S. with Applicant's naturalized American sister. The Applicant's elderly mother-in-law is a citizen of the PRC, but resides much of the year in the U.S. with the Applicant and his wife. His mother-in-law has permanent residency status. The Applicant has little contact with his step-father-in-law, who is a citizen of and resides in the PRC. The Applicant visited the PRC in 1996 to visit his parents. He plans no further visits to the PRC. None of the Applicant's foreign relatives is connected with any foreign government or subject to coercion. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

11/15/2005

Applicant's parents and brother are citizens of the People's Republic of China and reside in Hong Kong. Applicant traveled to Hong Kong in 1998. Applicant's familial ties to citizens of the People's Republic of China residing in Hong Kong raise serious security concerns because they could result in the compromise of classified information. Clearance is denied.

11/15/2005

Applicant has not demonstrated that the Administrative Judge's application of pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines was arbitrary or capricious. As long as a Judge does not engage in reasoning that is arbitrary or capricious, it is legally permissible for a Judge to decide that findings of mitigation under one Guideline do not require findings of mitigation under another Guideline involved in the case. Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge had a rational, legally permissible basis for her conclusion that Applicant's deliberate falsifications were not extenuated or mitigated by the evidence of his drug reform and rehabilitation. Applicant has not shown the Judge's analysis under the whole person concept was arbitrary or capricious. Adverse decision affirmed.

11/15/2005

Applicant experienced financial difficulties for several years before becoming unemployed for about ten months in February 2002. His current debts consist of delinquent consumer credit accounts exceeding $46,000.00. He has never implemented a repayment plan directly with any of his creditors or through any credit counseling service. He has never applied for bankruptcy relief, and no payments have been made against the accounts for several years. Applicant has failed to successfully mitigate the security concerns raised by his financial problems. Clearance is denied.

11/15/2005

Applicant's disagreement with the Judge's assessment of the evidence is not sufficient to persuade the Board that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant's pro se status did not relieve him of the obligation to take timely, reasonable steps to raise objections or other procedural matters to preserve them for appeal. Relevance is a broad evidentiary concept, not a narrow one. In reviewing a Judge's evidentiary rulings, the Board recognizes the practical need to give some latitude to the Judge, who often must make evidentiary rulings under the pressure of an ongoing hearing and without the luxury to take those rulings under advisement. Decisions of Hearing Office Judges in other DOHA cases are not legally binding precedent in other cases. Adverse decision affirmed.

11/15/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate the Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline H (illegal drugs) security concerns stemming from his long history of marijuana use, at times while holding a security clearance, and his multiple deliberate false statements to the government about his drug use. Clearance is denied.

11/15/2005

Board does not have to agree with the Administrative Judge's challenged findings of fact to conclude they reflect a plausible interpretation of the record evidence. A Judge must apply pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines and cannot construe or interpret them in a manner contrary to their plain language. It is permissible for a party to ask the Board to take administrative notice of the text of a statute identified or referred to in the record evidence or during the proceedings below. The Judge's errors concerning the application of certain Adjudicative Guidelines disqualifying and mitigating conditions was harmless under the particular facts of this case. Favorable decision affirmed.

11/14/2005

Board does not have supervisory jurisdiction over Hearing Office Administrative Judges, who have discretionary authority to make decisions of a procedural nature, subject to review for action that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Whether the Board agrees with the discretionary choices a Judge makes concerning procedural matters is irrelevant. The standard of review is whether the Judge's challenged choices are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant has not shown the Judge committed legal error with respect to his handling of an email message submitted to him by Applicant's hearing counsel after the hearing was conducted. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. There is conflicting record evidence on whether Applicant wants to retire to Slovakia. Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the conflicting record evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

11/08/2005

Applicant is a computer systems analyst for a defense contractor. He admits to delinquent debts as shown on a credit bureau report. Applicant stated in response to security investigators that he would either pay the debts or make arrangements to pay the debts. He stated in response to the Statement of Reasons that he paid two of the debts and had arrangements to pay the other four debts. He provided no documents to support payment on the debts, or the agreements to pay the debts. He has not met his burden to mitigate security concerns for his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied.

11/08/2005

The Applicant's wife is a citizen of Japan, but resides permanently in the U.S. The Applicant's 89 year old mother is a citizen of Greece, but also resides permanently in the U.S. The Applicant has a cousin, who is a citizen of and resides in Greece. He works in a private bank. The Applicant's foreign relatives are not connected to any foreign government, and are not subject to coercion. The Applicant's deceased father left the Applicant $700,000 worth of unimproved real-estate in Greece, and a joint interest in a $100,000 Greek bank account with his mother. At first blush this foreign property interest appears to be significant, but it pales in comparison with the Applicant's $3,500,000 net worth in the U.S. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

11/08/2005

Applicant, a 61-year-old systems analyst, had one job-related drinking incident in 2001 and one DWI in 2003. Although he has twice stopped drinking, Applicant continues to drink at a lower level of consumption. Applicant has not mitigated the government's security concerns regarding his alcohol consumption. Clearance is denied.

11/08/2005

Applicant is unable to successfully mitigate the foreign preference and foreign influence security concerns due to (1) his possession of a Filipino passport and (2) his family ties to the Philippines. Clearance is denied.

11/08/2005

Applicant accrued over $28,000 in delinquent debts in 1996 and 1997 due to overspending and her husband's unexpected unemployment for 11 months in 1997. She and her husband initially tried to resolve their debts through a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in December 1997, but the petition was dismissed for non-payment less than one year later. Despite resolving some of her smaller delinquencies, Applicant still owes about $23,000 and has no plan for paying or otherwise resolving her debts despite now having the financial means to do so. She failed to mitigate the resulting security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations), and her request for a security clearance is denied.

11/08/2005

11/08/2005

Applicant is 51-years-old. She met her husband from Egypt on the internet in 1997, and married him in Egypt in 1998. Applicant's husband worked for the Presidency of Egypt for 11 years. Her father-in-law is a retired colonel from the Egyptian military and also retired as a high ranking government employee. Applicant's husband became a United States citizen in 2005. He has two sons from a previous marriage, 14 and 10 who live with their mother in Egypt. He supports his sons from interest from an early inheritance received from his father. Applicant has delinquent debts that she has been unwilling to satisfy, despite having the means. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline B and F. Clearance is denied.

11/08/2005

Applicant's mother and several sibling are citizen residents of Iran, as are his wife's mother and siblings. Applicant failed to mitigate foreign influence security concerns raised by the presence of his family members in Iran. Clearance is denied.

11/08/2005

This 58-year-old engineer was born in Israel in 1947, came to the U.S. in 1968 to attend college, and became a citizen in 1974. He returned to Israel to reside on two occasions, the second of which was to care for his seriously ill mother. During these periods, he worked for a total of four Israeli companies, none involving a security clearance. He exercised dual citizenship by renewing his Israeli passport after becoming an American and using that passport when traveling on business while working in Israel. He has surrendered his Israeli passport and renounced his Israeli citizenship. He has no family or other ties of any significance with Israel. He has had no contact with any of his former employers or colleagues in Israel. His present colleagues consider Applicant to be a man of integrity and dedication to U.S. interests. Mitigation has been established. Clearance is granted.

11/08/2005

Applicant mitigated foreign preference concerns after he returned his Bulgarian passport and took steps to renounce his citizenship and his pension. Under a whole person analysis he also mitigated foreign influence security concerns over bonds to his parents, brother, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and friends who are citizens of Bulgaria and reside there. Applicant has strong ties to the U.S. as a resident here for nine years and a naturalized citizen for three. Applicant's assurances that he would contact appropriate U.S. officials if any pressure were attempted are credible and are bolstered by his supervisor's positive assessment of his exemplary work and of him as a very loyal and trustworthy person. He had no intent to willfully falsify by omissions on his security clearance application, so personal conduct concerns do not remain. Clearance is granted.

11/08/2005

Applicant has a long-standing friendship with the widow of her first cousin once-removed. The widow and her son are citizens and residents of Taiwan. Applicant visited her friend and her son in Taiwan in 2001. In 2002 and 2003, Applicant, who held a security clearance, was reprimanded by her employer for noncompliance with security regulations. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from her friendship with her distant relatives in Taiwan and her noncompliance with security regulations. Clearance is denied.

11/08/2005

Applicant was an officer in the Public Health Service (PHS). After his son was born with severe health problems and his wife suffered a debilitating illness, Applicant left the PHS for more lucrative employment. The government claimed recoupment of funds paid as retention bonuses and incentive pay. Applicant contested the claims upon the advice of counsel. Applicant denied the existence of the debt on his security clearance application. Later, a court ruled against him at trial and Applicant paid the debt. Applicant has distant relatives in Israel; he maintains casual but regular contact with his mother's first cousin. Applicant mitigated the security concerns relating to foreign influence, personal conduct, and financial considerations. Clearance is granted.

11/04/2005

Because there is no presumption of error below, the Administrative Judge's unchallenged findings of fact about Applicant's history of criminal conduct stand. The Judge properly evaluated the totality of Applicant's history of criminal conduct instead of considering each incident in a piecemeal manner. The Judge's unchallenged findings of fact provide a legally sufficient basis for his adverse conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility under Guideline J. Adverse decision affirmed.

11/03/2005

The Applicant used marijuana and cocaine, one time each, in 1983. He was granted a security clearance in November of 1984; but subsequent to this grant and until December of 1984, the Applicant used methamphetamine for a three week period, culminating with daily usage. During this period of methamphetamine usage, the Applicant spent as much as $500 per week for the drug. He was counseled by his employer, on two occasions, due to his use of methamphetamine. Fourteen years later, in 1998, the Applicant again used marijuana. He used marijuana on five occasions, about once a year, until his last usage in January of 2003. He intends no future Drug Involvement, and "rarely" associates with those he knows use drugs. As the Applicant's past Drug Involvement is not recent, nearly three years ago, mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

11/03/2005

The Applicant failed to file his Federal and state tax returns in a timely fashion from 1996 through 2002. All of these returns were filed in 2003, when the Applicant was being reinvestigated for a security clearance. He continues to procrastinate concerning his tax liabilities and filed late returns for the 2003 and 2004 tax years, showing that he has not learned his lesson. He also failed to resolve some small, but telling, long-standing debts. Sufficient mitigation is not shown. Adverse inference is not overcome. Clearance is denied.

11/03/2005

Applicant was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment (seven years suspended) for dispensing cocaine and possession with intent to dispense cocaine, and served 15 months in prison. The provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 986 require denial of his clearance. Clearance denied.

11/03/2005

Although the Board has held that an Administrative Judge can take into account the absence of corroborating documentation in evaluating an applicant's claim that he or she has satisfied particular debts, the Board has not held that a Judge cannot, as a matter of law, make findings of fact about the satisfaction of such debts without such documentation. Whether a Judge's findings about an applicant's debts are sustainable will depend on a consideration of the record evidence as a whole, with the presence or absence of corroborating evidence being a relevant consideration that a Judge should take into account, subject to review under the standards set forth in the Directive. The Board need not agree with the Judge's findings to conclude they are sustainable. Department Counsel has not shown that the Judge erred by applying Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions 3 and 6 in this case. Favorable decision affirmed.

11/03/2005

Applicant is unable to successfully mitigate the foreign influence security concern due to his close family ties to the People's Republic of China, a country that is ruled by an authoritarian government controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Clearance is denied.

11/02/2005

This 45-year-old software engineer has a history of marijuana use beginning in 1996 and continuing to at least 2003. He knowingly falsified his answers to drug-related questions 27 and 28 on two (2001 and 2003) security clearance applications. Mitigation has not been established. Clearance is denied.

11/02/2005

The Applicant has three felony convictions, which occurred in 1977 and 1978, when he was still a teenager. The provisions of 10 U.S.C. 986, as amended on October 9, 2004, still apply as to his second incarceration, which exceeded one year. Furthermore, I can not ignore his continued, post incarceration, illegal conduct, which ended with his addiction to crack cocaine in 1994. This is not meritorious conduct that merits waiver consideration; and as such, I do not recommend further consideration of this case for waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986. Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied.

11/01/2005

This 45-year-old employee of a defense contractor has an ongoing history of 23 delinquent debts, beginning in about 2000, and totaling approximately $15,000. He has made no substantive efforts to resolve any of the debts and has not demonstrated financial rehabilitation. Mitigation has not been established. Clearance is denied.

11/01/2005

Because there is no presumption of error below, the Board will not address or review the Administrative Judge's unchallenged findings of fact about Applicant's history of financial difficulties. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. The security significance of an applicant's conduct or circumstances under an applicable Guideline is not increased or decreased by the outcome of the security clearance adjudication. The Judge was not required to conclude that the security concerns raised by Applicant's overall history of financial difficulties were extenuated or mitigated because her delinquent debts arose several years in the past. It was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for the Judge to conclude that the mere passage of time since Applicant's delinquent debts were initially incurred did not extenuate or mitigate her failure to resolve them in subsequent years. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/31/2005

Applicant's financial indebtedness remains delinquent and he has not made a good faith effort to resolve his debts. His intentional falsifications on his security clearance application are a violation of Title 18, USC 1001, a felony and have not bee mitigated. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Applicant is employed by a defense contractor as a mechanical engineer. He has a history of heavy marijuana use as a high school and college student. He used cocaine once in 2002. While he does not intend to use marijuana or cocaine in the future, he associates with individuals who use illegal drugs. Applicant's failure to mitigate his use of illegal drugs raises security concerns. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Applicant's brother and two sisters are citizens and residents of Iran. He last saw them in 1975. In the past 30 years, he has had infrequent written correspondence with them due to his poor command of the written Farsi language. His telephone contact with them has also been extremely limited. He last talked with his sister in 2004, following the death of their mother. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications of having siblings who are citizens of a foreign country. Clearance is granted.

10/31/2005

The Applicant is a dual citizen of Iran and the United States. She possesses an Iranian passport despite the provisions of the Money Memorandum, and does not fall within the Government's exception. She has significant family ties in Iran that could raise a security concern. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Applicant's foreign family ties have been mitigated and do not raise a security concern. Clearance is granted.

10/31/2005

The Applicant is a dual citizen of Iran and the United States. She possessed and has extensively used her Iranian passport. She has failed to comply with the provisions of the Money Memorandum, and does not fall within the Government's exception. She has significant family ties in Iran that could raise a security concern. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

The Applicant has surrendered his Chinese passport to the proper authorities and it has been cancelled. He has also renounced his Chinese citizenship. His casual and infrequent contact with foreign ties pose no security risk. Clearance is granted.

10/31/2005

Applicant owes over $11,000 in delinquent debt consisting primarily of personal credit card accounts either charged off as business losses or being sought through collection agencies. Applicant has not paid or made sufficient attempts to resolve her debts, and her current financial situation is unsound. She failed to mitigate the resulting security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations), and her request for a security clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Applicant has a history of alcohol, heroin, and marijuana use to the point of diagnosed dependence with significant relapses following substance abuse treatment in 1995, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Her substance abuse led to several convictions for criminal trespass. Involved in a methadone program off and on from 1997 to 2004, she abused heroin and marijuana as recently as 2003 while employed by a defense contractor, and continued to drink beer on a regular basis. After a year of abstinence from alcohol, she consumed alcohol to intoxication on two occasions in February 2005. She was not fully candid on her security clearance application about her alcohol and drug treatment, her illegal drug use, or her criminal arrest record, and has delinquent debts that remain unresolved. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Applicant and his wife were both born in Taiwan and are naturalized U.S. citizens. Applicant's sister and brother are U.S. citizens residing in Taiwan. His in-laws are citizens and residents of Taiwan. Applicant formally renounced his Taiwanese citizenship and his wife sold her stocks in a Taiwanese company. Applicant admitted a war between the U.S. and Taiwan would place him in a difficult position, but stated he would be loyal to the U.S. if the President declared war and Congress approved it. Security concerns based on foreign influence and foreign preference are mitigated. Clearance is granted.

10/31/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his more than $13,000 of delinquent debt. He mitigated security concerns raised by his personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Applicant is a 62-year-old communication specialist working for a federal contractor. He admitted that he intentionally falsified his answer on his 2003 Security Clearance Application relating to his criminal history. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from criminal and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Applicant began consuming alcoholic beverages in high school. In college he was twice placed on disciplinary probation for alcohol-related misconduct. He began smoking marijuana in high school and increased his use in college. He was evaluated by a certified substance abuse counselor as an abuser of marijuana and alcohol. He stopped using marijuana at the end of his third year of college, but he continues to excessively consume alcohol. The security concern based on drug involvement is mitigated, but the concern based on alcohol consumption is not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Applicant has a history of alcohol abuse that includes drinking to intoxication, alcohol-related incidents on and off the job site, and failure to follow prescribed protocols following treatment-discharge. Applicant compounds judgment lapses associated with his history of alcohol abuse with a now-aged, non-alcohol related, arrest and his concealment of his alcohol-related arrests and treatment when completing his security clearance application. Neither Applicant's judgment lapses associated with his abuse of alcohol, alcohol-related arrests, and failure to adhere to his treatment protocol, nor his omissions of his alcohol-related arrests and treatment in his security clearance application are mitigated and raise continuing security concerns about his judgment and reliability. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Applicant incurred financial problems after being laid off from her employment in 1998. She was unable to find employment with the same pay and benefits and she ended up liable for payments on two vehicles for which she co-signed loans-one for her daughter and one for her son's girlfriend. Although she has made some effort to pay off her debts, she still owes more than she will be able to repay in the near future and has no plan in place to do so. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns over his failure to list a 1986 felony arrest on his security clearance and company applications as he had no intent to falsify. He had plead guilty to a misdemeanor and believed the court promised a clean record after probation. He also mitigated financial concerns as special circumstances led to his 1996 bankruptcy; he is resolving his education debt by regular payments as he has a stable job. Clearance is granted.

10/31/2005

Applicant committed criminal conduct on at least eight separate occasions, including spousal abuse, domestic battery, domestic violence, failure to appear for a bench warrant, and vandalism, during a period from 1986 to 2001. Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Applicant's mother and two sisters are citizens and residents of Vietnam. He is estranged from his sisters and his mother suffers from a mental disorder to the point she does not recognize him. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from his foreign relatives. Clearance is granted.

10/31/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate allegations of financial considerations relating to delinquent debts exceeding $40,000.00 including two judgments for small debts. He also failed to mitigate personal conduct allegations relating to failure to report these debts on his SF 86 offering only the excuse that he had forgotten about some since they were over six years old. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Applicant's father, a citizen and resident of the U.S., is a lawyer who has provided legal services to the Saudi Arabian embassy since 1985, pursuant to an annual, renewable, "at will" contract. Applicant's sister is a citizen of Sudan, a permanent resident of the U.S., and a U.S. government employee who intends to become a U.S. citizen. Applicant visited her extended family in Sudan for one month in 2001 but has had no further contact with them. The security concern based on foreign influence is mitigated. Clearance is granted.

10/31/2005

While Applicant's failure to succeed in his sports business can be attributed to business inexperience, lack of capitol, and being precluded from providing monogram services, there was also unforeseen external competition from the Nation's leading department store and the internet. Even though less than one year has passed since his Chapter 7 discharge, he has made major changes in his financial habits. Clearance is granted.

10/31/2005

Applicant is a systems engineer for a defense contractor. He was convicted in 1983 for distribution of illegal drug to an undercover police officer, and sentenced to five years incarceration suspended for five years while Applicant was on probation. In September 1986, he was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, and his probation was revoked. He was incarcerated for 22 months in a state prison. The provision of 10 U.S.C. § 986 apply. Clearance is denied. I recommend further consideration of this case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. § 986.

10/31/2005

Applicant is unable to successfully mitigate the foreign preference and foreign influence security concerns due to her connections or ties to Iran, a country hostile to the U.S. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

When the Board considers a claim of bias or lack of impartiality, the standard is whether the record of the proceedings below contains any indication that the Administrative Judge acted in a manner that would lead a disinterested person to question the fairness or impartiality of the Judge. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge was fair and impartial. Certain factual errors identified by the Judge do not warrant remand or reversal because the Judge's sustainable findings and conclusions are sufficient to support his overall conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility. Applicant has not shown that the Judge erred in evaluating her case under the whole person concept. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/31/2005

Applicant owed 13 debts totaling approximately $37,000. She has paid or has arranged payment on six of the debts totaling approximately $11,000. The remaining seven debts were charged off between 1996 and 1999. They no longer appear on her credit report and are no longer enforceable as they exceed the state's statute of limitations. Her financial problems were caused by factors beyond her control. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from her debts. Clearance is granted.

10/31/2005

Applicant, who is 43 years old, was born in the People's Republic of China, as was her daughter. She and her daughter are naturalized citizens and residents of the United States. Her mother, stepfather, father and sister are citizens of and reside in the People's Republic of China. She has mitigated the government's foreign influence concerns. Clearance is granted.

10/31/2005

Applicant is a 34-year-old married male who has worked for a defense contractor since April 2002. He is a naturalized United States citizen possessing limited English language proficiency. Applicant was arrested in 1990 for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). In 1993, 1999, and 2004, he was arrested for, and convicted of, similar offenses, and received appropriate counseling. On his 2002 security clearance application, two of his answers regarding alcohol usage were incomplete or incorrect. Applicant has successfully shown that the incorrect answers on his security application were the result of English language difficulties, but he has failed to mitigate security concerns regarding his use of alcohol. Clearance is denied.

10/31/2005

Under a whole person analysis Applicant mitigated foreign influence security concerns over her ties to her parents, mother-in-law, and siblings who are citizens of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and reside there. Applicant is a senior engineer with strong ties to the U.S. as she has been a resident here for twenty years and a naturalized citizen for seven. Applicant's assurances that she would contact appropriate U.S. officials if any pressure were attempted are credible and are bolstered by her supervisors' positive assessment. Her work is exemplary and her supervisors and co-worker assess her as very loyal and trustworthy person. Clearance is granted.

10/31/2005

Foreign influence concerns arose at the time Applicant's Statement of Reasons was prepared as a result of his mother having renounced her citizenship to accept and assume a position with the Taiwanese legislature. Since Applicant's hearing, his mother's term with the Taiwanese legislature has expired, she has returned permanently to the United States, and taken all possible steps to renew her United States citizenship. This concern is no longer applicable. Applicant also successfully mitigated a security concern about his inadvertent omission of foreign travel when he failed to list a vacation to Australia on his security clearance application. Clearance is granted.

10/31/2005

Applicant's two older brothers are citizens and residents of Vietnam. His previous contact with them was limited and is now nonexistent. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from his foreign relatives. Clearance is granted.

10/28/2005

Applicant seeks a security clearance to work as an aircraft assembler for a defense contractor. He accumulated substantial delinquent debts between about 1997 and 2003. The debts arose largely from circumstances beyond his control, including periods of unemployment, a severe business downturn, and his separation and divorce. Since then, Applicant has not paid the greatest part of his outstanding debts. He has not obtained financial counseling or made a significant effort to resolve his delinquent debts. Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial difficulties. Clearance is denied.

10/28/2005

Applicant was born and raised in Lebanon, but immigrated to the U.S. in 1989 and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1996. Available information is sufficient to mitigate the foreign preference (Guideline B) security concerns due to his wife's family who are Lebanese citizens living in the U.S., and due to his own ties to his father and siblings, who are Lebanese citizens living in Lebanon. Clearance is granted.

10/28/2005

In 1998, Applicant filed for bankruptcy protection due to medical bills. Four years later, Applicant's husband was involved in a serious accident resulting in the loss of his job and loss of pay for six months. Applicant owes four debts totaling less than $5,000. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from her financial difficulties. Clearance is granted.

10/28/2005

Applicant deliberately falsified his security-clearance application by minimizing his use of marijuana and by omitting a 1996 arrest for possession of marijuana. In addition, he is unable to successfully mitigate the security concerns stemming from (1) a child-support arrearage for more than $35,000.00, and (2) willfully failing to file state and federal income tax returns for several years. Clearance is denied.

10/28/2005

Applicant is indebted to six creditors in the approximate total amount of $15,000.00. These debts are all past-due. He is, and will most likely remain, under severe financial duress. This fact precludes a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

10/28/2005

This 44-year-old employee of a defense contractor has a 26 year history of alcohol abuse, a 24 year history of arrests, falsified an answer on his security clearance application, and lied to a agent of the Defense Security Service. No mitigation has been established. Clearance is denied.

10/28/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns about foreign preference by turning in his passport and renouncing citizenship with Turkey. He mitigated concerns about foreign influence by establishing his excellent record as a holder of a security clearance for 15 years and his reputation for security awareness. Based on the whole person analysis, clearance is granted.

10/28/2005

Applicant is a 58-year-old senior project engineer who has worked for various federal contractors for over 25 years. Applicant willfully failed to file his federal and state tax returns from 1997 to 2003. Applicant did not divulge his failure to file tax returns, and provided misleading information in a sworn statement during the investigation. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding his criminal and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

10/28/2005

Applicant's continuing receipt of his pension after renouncing his foreign citizenship and becoming a U.S. citizen in May 1999 has not been mitigated by Applicant's favorable character evidence. Under the circumstances of this case, by continuing to accept the pension, Applicant continues to accept a right or privilege that only a military officer of Turkey is entitled to. The favorable character evidence does not dispel the foreign influence concerns triggered by Applicant's close bonds of affection with three immediate family members. Clearance is denied.

10/28/2005

Applicant's parents, mother-in-law, and three brothers are citizens and residents of Taiwan. His wife, a citizen of the U.S., provides $2,000 a year in support to her mother in Taiwan. After attaining U.S. citizenship and acquiring a U.S. passport, Applicant obtained a Taiwanese passport, which he possessed and used for personal travel to Taiwan. As a U.S. citizen, he was enrolled in the Taiwanese national insurance program and received health benefits from the program when visiting in Taiwan. Applicant's conduct indicating a preference for Taiwan over the U.S. and his familial ties to citizens and residents of Taiwan raise serious security concerns because they could result in the compromise of classified information. Clearance is denied.

10/28/2005

Applicant was arrested in 1996 and 2001 for driving under the influence (DUI). Both arrests resulting in DUI convictions. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from his alcohol-related incidents. Clearance is granted.

10/28/2005

Applicant admitted using the internet to download and save numerous images of "hardcore" child pornography, visit pedophilia-oriented chat rooms, and exchange "hardcore" images of children. Although no disqualifying conditions based on criminal conduct were established, security concerns based on sexual behavior and personal conduct were not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

10/28/2005

Applicant's security clearance was revoked in April 2000 for a pattern of criminal assault behavior (six domestic incidents) between November 1995 and March 1998. On reapplication, Applicant has shown he has completed his court-ordered counseling and there has been no recurrence, thereby mitigating the personal conduct concerns. Applicant had delinquent debt following his divorce from his second wife, which he is in the process of resolving. Clearance is granted.

10/27/2005

Applicant was born in 1950 in the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria(British), now the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Nigeria). He became a United States citizen in 1990. His wife and one brother, are naturalized United States citizens, living in the United States. His daughter is American-born and living with him. One sister, a citizen of Nigeria, also lives in the United States. Security concerns have been raised because Applicant maintained dual citizenship, and because two of his brothers are citizens and residents of the Nigeria, three sisters are citizens of the Nigeria, and two of his sisters continue to reside there. Security concerns arising from possible foreign influence and foreign preference are mitigated. Clearance is granted.

10/27/2005

Applicant has been employed by federal contractors since his retirement from the Navy. His retirement was by mutual agreement with his commander based upon Applicant's admissions at the time he had used his government computer against regulations, and had shared inappropriate information he obtained through his computer with coworkers while on duty. Applicant failed to disclose the reason for his retirement on two separate Security Clearance Applications (SF 86) he submitted in 2000 and 2003. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding his misuse of government technology systems and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

10/27/2005

Applicant accumulated delinquent debts between about 1997 and 2001. The debts arose largely from circumstances beyond her control, including her divorce, multiple injuries and illnesses resulting in uninsured medical bills, periods of unemployment, renter's default on a rental agreement causing foreclosure of property, and negligent repair work on a van destroying its value and resulting in voluntary repossession. Subsequently, Applicant paid off substantially all her delinquent debts. Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from her financial difficulties. Applicant did not intend to deceive the government when she mistakenly denied certain delinquent debts on her security clearance application. Clearance is granted.

10/27/2005

Applicant is a 53-year-old employee of a defense contractor who was arrested and convicted of two armed robberies when he was 21 years old and served three years and six months in confinement. While in prison, Applicant realized the foolishness of his ways, changed his attitudes and conduct, and that has been the model for his life. Since his confinement, Applicant has led an exemplary life working with a national community service agency on rehabilitation of young persons. Applicant has held a security clearance since 1989. However, the law requires that the finding must be adverse since he was incarcerated for more than one year. I recommend further consideration of this case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986 and am joined by the government in that recommendation. Clearance is denied.

10/27/2005

Although the Administrative Judge acknowledged the proper burden of proof, the Judge misapplied it in this case. The record evidence does not support the Judge's application of Foreign Influence Mitigating Conditions 1, 3 and 5. The Judge's obligation to apply pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines is complementary to, not exclusive of, the Judge's obligation to evaluate an applicant's security eligibility under the whole person concept. The Judge failed to articulate a rational basis for why he concluded the favorable evidence presented by Applicant showed refutation, extenuation, or mitigation of the security concerns raised under Guideline B. Favorable decision reversed.

10/27/2005

Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Administrative Judge's finding of falsification is sustainable. Given the record evidence in this case, Applicant's falsifications and subsequent disclosures did not warrant consideration of Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 2. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant on appeal did not compel the Judge, as a matter of law or logic, to conclude Applicant had rebutted, extenuated, or mitigated the security concerns raised by his falsifications. Adverse remand decision affirmed.

10/27/2005

Applicant failed to file federal income tax returns for two of four years he was working in Taiwan for a defense contractor in the early 1990's. He further failed to file any federal or state income tax returns for the eight-year period after he returned from Taiwan and was working in the U.S. Applicant failed to successfully mitigate security concerns raised under Guideline J regarding criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

10/26/2005

Applicant accumulated numerous debts that were discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He still owes federal and state taxes and a child support arrearage. He was arrested for reckless endangerment for firing a shotgun into the air on the Fourth of July and placed on probation before judgment. The charges were dismissed after he successfully completed his probation, including court-ordered alcohol counseling. He did not disclose his arrest and alcohol counseling on his security clearance application (SF 86). He rebutted the allegation of falsifying his SF 86, but did not mitigate the security concern based on financial considerations. Clearance is denied.

10/26/2005

Applicant is 25 years old with a history of occasional cocaine and marijuana abuse, spanning 1995 through 2003, in addition to a 2001 DUI misdemeanor conviction. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from drug involvement but did for criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

10/26/2005

Applicant owes fifteen debts totally in excess of $39,000. She also provided false answers on a security clearance application. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from her unpaid debts and her false answers. Clearance is denied.

10/26/2005

Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. Just because the Judge did not give more weight to the evidence presented by Applicant, it does not follow that the Judge simply ignored it. Apart from identifying one error that is harmless under the facts of this case, Applicant has not demonstrated the Judge misapplied the Adjudicative Guidelines pertaining to Guideline H (Drug Involvement). Adverse decision affirmed.

10/25/2005

There is no right to a security clearance, and no presumption in favor of granting or continuing a security clearance. Each party is responsible for presenting evidence that it wants the Administrative Judge to consider in the case. Board does not have supervisory authority over Department Counsel. Applicant has failed to identify how any actions by Department Counsel affected the Judge's conduct of the hearing or the Judge's rendering of a fair decision. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/24/2005

Applicant is a 26-year-old tool room attendant who has worked for a defense contractor since October 2002. By 2001, Applicant began accumulating debts which became increasingly past due following the birth of his daughter in February 2002. In November 2002, however, he certified on his security clearance application that he had no delinquent debts. Although Applicant's failure to understand the financial terms used on the security clearance application explain his denial of delinquencies, and although he mitigated two of the alleged debts and shown a third debt to be subject to dispute, he failed to mitigate the remaining debts or otherwise assuage security concerns. Clearance is denied.

10/24/2005

The Administrative Judge erred by reasoning that Applicant could not mitigate his history of financial difficulties unless he satisfied certain Financial Considerations mitigating conditions. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. The errors identified by Applicant on appeal do not warrant remand or reversal. Department Counsel persuasively argues that the Judge's decision can be affirmed on alternate grounds. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/21/2005

Absent a showing that a delay in the issuance of an Administrative Judge's decision prejudiced the appealing party in any meaningful way, mere proof of delay is not sufficient to warrant remand or reversal of the Judge's decision. Decisions by Hearing Office Judges are not legally binding precedent that must be followed by other Hearing Office Judges or the Board. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. The favorable record evidence cited by Applicant on appeal did not compel the Judge, as a matter of law, to conclude Applicant had sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by his history of financial difficulties. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/21/2005

Applicant accumulated delinquent debts between about 1989 and 2002. The debts arose largely from circumstances beyond his control, including his separation and contested divorce, his injury in an automobile accident and resulting lost wages, his mother's illness and subsequent death, several periods of unemployment, and a second automobile accident causing the destruction of his vehicle. Applicant obtained a degree and a better-paying job, and began paying off his delinquent debts. He obtained financial counseling and either paid off or negotiated a payment plan for substantially all his delinquent debts. Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial difficulties. Clearance is granted.

10/21/2005

Applicant, who is now 46 years old, began using marijuana as an adolescent. Her last use of marijuana occurred in approximately June 2004, at the age of 44. She falsified her security clearance application by under-reporting her marijuana use and by not listing her most recent use because she did not want this information revealed to her employer. Although Applicant states she will not use marijuana in the future because of its impact on her eligibility for a security clearance, she does not think marijuana is harmful, she speculates that many people who hold security clearances smoke marijuana, and she believes marijuana use should be legalized. Applicant's falsification of her drug use on her security clearance application and her illegal involvement with drugs raise serious security concerns. Clearance is denied.

10/21/2005

Applicant is 57 years old and has been married for nearly 31 years. His wife has been hospitalized 35 times due to mental illness in the past 20-25 years, and Applicant has incurred multiple debts for medical services provided to his wife not covered by his medical insurance. Applicant failed to disclose any delinquent debts on his Security Clearance Application (SF 86) in Septmber 2002. In May 2005, he was granted Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief. Applicant successfully mitigated the security concerns raised by his financial difficulties and personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

10/21/2005

The rebuttable presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence is not rebutted by the fact that the appealing party can point to record evidence that he or she believes should have been given greater weight by the Judge. Reading the Judge's decision in its entirety, the Board concludes it does not state or imply that Applicant had totally neglected his debts. There is conflicting record evidence on whether two of the debts alleged in the SOR are actually the same debt. The Board does not have to decide whether it agrees with the Judge's finding that there are two separate debts to conclude that the Judge's finding reflects a legally permissible interpretation of the record evidence. Applicant waived his right to a hearing and received a reasonable opportunity to respond to the File of Relevant Material and to present additional evidence for consideration in his case. Applicant is not entitled to a remand just so he can have another chance to present his case. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/21/2005

Applicant committed numerous rule violations during a 18-year period when he was employed as a correctional officer. They were resolved variously by letters of counseling, reprimands, suspensions from duty, demotion, and termination of employment. The security concern based on personal conduct is not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

10/21/2005

Applicant abused marijuana with varying frequency from approximately 1977 to 1998. His illegal drug involvement led to criminal arrests for felony sale of marijuana in about 1982, for which he was sentenced to a deferred prison term and ten years probation, and for marijuana possession in 1980, 1993, 1994, and 1998. Since he was not incarcerated for any of these criminal drug charges, 10 U.S.C. § 986 as amended does not apply. Yet, criminal conduct and personal conduct concerns persist where he deliberately misrepresented his marijuana involvement on his security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

10/21/2005

Applicant has a history of drug abuse and excessive alcohol consumption. Applicant was still using marijuana after he completed his security clearance application (SCA) and was interviewed by a Defense Security Service agent. Applicant deliberately omitted relevant and material facts from the SCA. The Department of Defense is prohibited from granting him a clearance because of his drug use. 10 U.S.C. § 986(c)(2). Applicant mitigated security concerns raised by his excessive alcohol consumption, but not the concerns raised by his drug abuse, his personal conduct, and his criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

10/20/2005

Applicant is a 40-year-old naturalized United States citizen from Afghanistan. Applicant is employed by a federal contractor as a translator. Applicant's mother, four sisters and three brothers are all citizens of Afghanistan. His four sisters and one brother reside there. Applicant did not offer any information to mitigate the foreign influence security concerns. Clearance is denied.

10/20/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. There is conflicting record evidence on whether Applicant was terminated by a particular employer in 2000. The Administrative Judge's challenged finding of fact is sustainable because it reflects a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence that was available to her. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/20/2005

Applicant is a 62-year-old linguist who has worked for a federal contractor since 2002. Applicant is a naturalized United States citizen from Iraq. Applicant's wife is a citizen of Iraq and resides with him in the United States. Applicant's two sisters are citizens and residents of Iraq. Applicant's parents-in-law are citizens and residents of Iraq. Applicant visited his sisters in Iraq in 1994, and in 2000 he traveled there to meet and marry his wife. Applicant failed to provide any information to mitigate the security concerns regarding foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

10/20/2005

Applicant mitigated allegations of foreign preference and foreign influence by renouncing dual citizenship with Hong Kong and turning in the British passport issued to him before he emigrated to the U.S. in 1981 at age 14. Applicant has spent the last 12 years in the U.S., attending high school and university. He and his mother became citizens at the earliest opportunity and the only close relative that remains in Hong Kong, now a Special Administrative Region of China, is his father who holds a U.S. green card, and desires to emigrate to the U.S. Applicant's relationship with his father has always been remote. Based on a whole person analysis, clearance is granted.

10/20/2005

There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party has the burden of identifying factual or legal error that warrants remand or reversal. The right to a hearing does not mean that an applicant is entitled to receive multiple hearings in his or her case. Applicant has not claimed, or made any colorable showing, that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence at his hearing. Under the circumstances, the Board has no legitimate basis to remand the case for a new hearing as requested by Applicant. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/20/2005

Applicant is a 40-year-old process engineer who has worked for a federal contractor since 1998. Applicant became a naturalized United States citizen from Vietnam in 1996. Applicant's sister and brother-in-law are citizens and residents of Vietnam. Applicant's brother is also a naturalized American citizen, who resides and does business in Vietnam. Applicant loaned his brother $94,000.00 to purchase a house in Vietnam. No information was provided by Applicant with regards to his contacts with his relatives in Vietnam, his loan agreement with his brother, where his sister and brother-in-law are employed or if they are agents of the government, or if his brother has any contacts with the Vietnamese government. Applicant failed to provide information on salient points and therefore failed to mitigate the security concerns under foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

10/20/2005

Applicant is a 40-year-old senior scientist who has worked for a federal contractor and held a secret security clearance since 1991. Applicant was concerned about his alcohol consumption and referred himself for treatment. Although initially he did not believe he was an alcoholic, he later acknowledged and embraced his alcoholism. He had one minor relapse during his initial stages of treatment, but has remained sober for almost a year. Applicant attends Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) almost daily and regularly attends an outpatient alcohol program to prevent relapse. Applicant has not had any alcohol related incidents either before or after his acceptance of his alcoholism. Applicant is totally committed to his sobriety. Applicant has successfully mitigated the security concern regarding alcohol consumption. Clearance is granted.

10/20/2005

Applicant and his wife began experiencing financial difficulties in the early 1990's. They experienced two family tragedies during this time, and Applicant filed for bankruptcy relief in 1992 and 1994. Applicant has been regularly employed since June 2001. His current debts total over $60,000.00, which have accumulated over many years. Applicant has not attempted to resolve any of the debts directly with the creditors in any meaningful way. Clearance is denied.

10/20/2005

Applicant is 41 years old, and a commercial truck driver teamed with a co-driver. In 1990 and 1991 Applicant was arrested on charges of possession, distribution, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana. She pled guilty to distribution of marijuana and was sentenced to six years in jail, but was released on probation after three months incarceration. On December 31, 2001, at a New Years Eve party, Applicant took a few puffs on someone's marijuana cigarette. Applicant mitigated the criminal conduct and drug involvement security concerns. The 10 U.S.C. §986 bar to a security clearance for persons convicted and sentenced to more than a year in jail does not apply to Applicant under the 2004 amendment because she served less than one year in jail. Clearance is granted.

10/20/2005

Applicant is 56 years old, married with three children and three grandchildren. He drives a tractor trailer for a trucking company and requires a security clearance to haul military cargo. Applicant resolved his income tax problem. His marijuana conviction occurred 33 years ago. Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations and criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

10/19/2005

This 30-year-old technician for a defense contractor has a decade-long history of marijuana use that apparently ended only after the last of his three drug-related arrests, in 2003. He also has an ongoing history of 13 delinquent debts exceeding $32,000.00. He falsified material facts as to four separate questions on his 2001 security clearance application. His three arrests and his falsifications all constitute criminal misconduct. Mitigation and/or financial rehabilitation have not been established. Clearance is denied.

10/19/2005

Applicant's criminal activity occurred over five years ago. Since then she has become a law abiding, productive member of society. Clearance is granted.

10/19/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. In reviewing the Administrative Judge's challenged findings of falsification, the Board will consider whether there is sufficient record evidence to sustain those findings. Applicant's denials of any intent to falsify were part of the record that the Judge had to consider, but those denials were not binding or conclusive on the Judge. Considering the record as a whole, the Judge's findings of falsification are sustainable. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant on appeal did not preclude the Judge from making an unfavorable decision based on Applicant's falsifications. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/19/2005

It was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for the Administrative Judge to consider Applicant's answer to the SOR and Applicant's written statement to an investigator. Apart from disagreeing with the Judge's negative credibility determination, Applicant presents no cogent argument or reason for why the Judge's negative credibility determination was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Considering the record as a whole, the Judge had sufficient record evidence to find that Applicant acted without authorization when he crashed a coworker's computer, and that Applicant made harassing telephone calls to the same coworker. Applicant has failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Applicant has not shown that the Judge's evaluation of his case was inconsistent with the whole person concept. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/18/2005

Applicant, a native of Lebanon, acquired U.S. citizenship in 2001. She voted in a local election when living in Lebanon in 1996, but it was not an exercise of dual citizenship. Foreign preference concerns persist where she is unwilling to renounce her Lebanese citizenship, cannot recall the date of her U.S. naturalization, and has never voted in a U.S. election. Applicant also has continuing ties of affection and obligation to family members in Lebanon which create the potential for undue foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

10/17/2005

Applicant is a 25-year-old man employed as a mechanic. He is unable to successfully mitigate the security concerns of personal conduct (falsification of a security-clearance application) and a history of criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

10/17/2005

Applicant's financial problems continue to raise security concerns because of her delay in resolving debts of approximately $30,000 to twenty creditors. While Applicant's circumstances have some sympathetic elements as she is a single parent and, to her credit, has favorable work references from her supervisor, other managers, and a co-worker, nevertheless Applicant failed to initiate a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts in a timely manner. Thus, she has not demonstrated sufficiently that she has made a good-faith effort to resolve all her debts and to reform her financial practices. Clearance is denied.

10/17/2005

Security concerns were raised regarding a 51-year-old French-born, naturalized U.S. citizen. She obtained a French passport in 2001--long after her 1986 U.S. naturalization--and used it repeatedly to enter France and other countries, instead of using her American passport. Her refusal to surrender the French passport and her failure to obtain official approval for the foreign passport's use from the appropriate agency of the United States Government, in light of the August 2000 ASD/C³I memorandum implementing a passport policy "clarification," raise grave questions and doubts as to her allegiance to the United States and as to her security eligibility and suitability. Clearance is denied.

10/17/2005

The application of Adjudicative Guidelines disqualifying and mitigating conditions is not reducible to mechanical formula adjudication. Rather, their application requires the exercise of sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole. Applicant has not demonstrated the Judge's adverse conclusions under Guideline B, Guideline C, or Guideline F are arbitrary or capricious in light of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case. Decisions by Hearing Office Judges are not legally binding precedents that have to be followed by Hearing Office Judges or the Board in other cases. The favorable evidence presented by Applicant did not compel the Judge to render a favorable security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/17/2005

In 2002, Applicant surreptitiously took photographs of women undressing at two tanning salons, resulting in two misdemeanor peeping charges against Applicant. Applicant also downloaded and possessed pornographic images of children engaged in sexual acts with adults and was charged with possession of child pornography. The peeping charges were placed on a stet docket for one year conditioned on Applicant's good behavior. In April 2003, he pled guilty to the child pornography charge and was placed on probation for 18 months. His conduct continues to be a source of embarrassment and possible coercion. Clearance is denied.

10/17/2005

Applicant was convicted of three specifications of distribution of methamphetamine and one specification of attempt to distribute methamphetamine while on active duty in the U.S. Army in 1983. He was sentenced to serve one year confinement, reduced to paygrade E-1, forfeited all pay and allowances, and was separated from the Army with a dishonorable discharge. Although he would otherwise be able to mitigate the security concern created by his criminal conduct, he is prohibited from doing so because of the statutory disqualification imposed by 10 U.S.C. § 986. Clearance is denied.

10/17/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant cannot fairly challenge the Administrative Judge's decision based on a proffer of new evidence on appeal. The record evidence supports the Judge's finding that Applicant refused to sign a release authorizing DSS to obtain financial information about him as part of its background investigation. Given the procedural history of this case, Applicant was on adequate notice that DOHA proposed to deny or revoke his access to classified information based on his failure to sign a financial release. Applicant's refusal to sign a financial release provide a rational basis for the Judge's adverse conclusions under Guideline E. Nothing in Executive Order 10865, the Directive, or generally applicable principles of federal administrative law gives the parties a right to supplement the record evidence continuously. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/17/2005

Applicant is a 34-year-old man employed as an outside machinist for a defense contractor doing business at a naval shipyard. He is unable to successfully mitigate the security concerns of personal conduct and criminal conduct based on his deliberate falsification of a sworn statement made during his background investigation. Clearance is denied.

10/17/2005

Although Applicant was sentenced to19 months imprisonment in 1992, he served only 60 days in jail. Consequently, 18 U.S.C. §986, as amended, does not apply in this case. Applicant's criminal conduct was mitigated by the passage of time, his changed circumstances, and clear evidence of rehabilitation. Clearance granted.

10/14/2005

Certain remarks made by the Administrative Judge during the hearing could lead a disinterested person to question whether the Judge was indulging in personal criticism or disparagement of Applicant's conduct and situation having no apparent relevance to the issues in the case. Considering the Judge's challenged remarks in light of the record as a whole, the Board concludes Applicant has not shown any identifiable impairment of his right to a fair hearing, or a failure of the Judge to consider the record evidence as a whole. It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude Applicant's ties and contacts with in-laws in the People's Republic of China raised security concerns. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. One of the factual errors identified by Applicant is harmless in light of the Judge's other findings and conclusions that are sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/13/2005

Applicant's wife is a citizen of Sri Lanka and employed by an international organization. As a young man, he lived with his father, who held a high position in the Sri Lanka government. Applicant's uncle, a citizen of Sri Lanka, holds an appointed position in the government of Sri Lanka. Applicant has several friends who also hold high-level positions in the government of Sri Lanka. He is an unofficial point of contact for Sri Lankans who come to the U.S. for business and tourism. Applicant has traveled to Sri Lanka five times since 1995. He plans to travel to Sri Lanka in December 2005 to visit friends and family. Applicant's familial and social ties to citizens of Sri Lanka raise serious security concerns because they could be exploited by terrorist groups operating inside Sri Lanka, resulting in the compromise of classified information. Clearance is denied.

10/13/2005

Applicant is a technical writer for a defense contractor, and has held a security clearance since 1985. He has five criminal convictions from 1976 to 2000 for illegal possession of drugs, and driving under the influence of intoxicants. He has a conviction in 2001 for driving on a suspended driver's license. He admitted to only listing one of his convictions on his security clearance application because he feared the true information would affect his security clearance and job. Clearance is denied.

10/13/2005

Applicant has been a research engineer for the same defense contractor for over 35 years. In 1964, while on active military duty, Applicant's security clearance was revoked for soldier misconduct. In 1982, Applicant wrongly duplicated a drive-on security pass for his vehicle and was punished by his employer. In 2002, Applicant was given a package containing classified material to deliver to another of his employer's facilities. He took the material home over the week-end in violation of security procedures and delivered the package the next business day. There was no security compromise. Applicant was disciplined by his employer. Applicant has received awards and commendations from his employer for his work. Applicant has mitigated security concerns for security violations and personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

10/13/2005

Applicant, a native of India, acquired United States citizenship in February 2001. He holds all the key management positions with a U.S. computer company whose U.S. parent sends half of its commercial business to a subsidiary firm in India. In addition to serving as president, director, and part-owner of the U.S. parent, Applicant is a director of the subsidiary in India as well as of an independent Indian firm that he co-founded in 1986. He has financial assets in India (bank accounts, real property, a 14.63% share in the independent Indian company). His mother, siblings, and most of his in-laws are resident citizens of India. There are no foreign preference concerns where he has renounced his Indian citizenship. Potential outside activities concerns presented by his involvement with the businesses firms in India are mitigated where steps have been taken to insulate the U.S. subsidiary. Yet an unacceptable risk of undue foreign influence persists because of the ties to the companies domiciled in India, his substantial foreign assets in India, and his ties of affection and/or obligation to family members in India. Clearance is denied.

10/13/2005

This 55-year-old systems analyst filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on two occasions, in 1996 and 2004. The first bankruptcy resulted from the breakup of his second marriage, which ended in divorce. The second bankruptcy resulted from his unemployment for a year prior to the bankruptcy. He has a history of filing, but not paying, his state and federal income taxes. He systematically failed to have enough state and federal taxes withheld from his paychecks. State tax liens have been levied against him in the past and he has had payment plans with the Internal Revenue Service to pay delinquent federal taxes. He mistakenly believed that both his state and federal delinquent taxes were discharged in either bankruptcy. Applicant has failed to successfully mitigate the security concern stemming from his history of not meeting financial obligations. Clearance is denied.

10/13/2005

The Applicant owed five debts and a judgment totaling approximately $25,000. Applicant has paid some of the debt and is repaying other debt. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from her past financial difficulties. Clearance is granted.

10/13/2005

It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Administrative Judge to base findings of fact on admissions made by Applicant in a written statement he gave to an investigator in October 2002. Although there is conflicting record evidence on Applicant's intent or state of mind, the Judge's finding of willful falsification is sustainable in light of the record evidence as a whole. The absence of any criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001 did not bar the Judge from concluding Applicant's falsifications constituted a violation of that statute. Applicant has not shown that the Judge's decision is inconsistent with the whole person concept. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/13/2005

Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude that Applicant's alcohol abuse away from work raised security concerns. Given the record evidence in this case, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his alcohol abuse. The Judge had sufficient record evidence to conclude Applicant engaged in dishonest conduct within the meaning of Guideline E. The Judge erred by finding that Applicant misled a DSS agent during an interview. The errors identified by Applicant are harmless and do not warrant remand or reversal. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/12/2005

Department Counsel failed to demonstrate the Administrative Judge erred by applying Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 5 in this case. Given the procedural history of this case, it is legally untenable for Department Counsel to rely on a falsification argument to challenge the Judge's decision. In evaluating an applicant's security eligibility under the whole person concept, a Judge must apply that concept in a common sense manner that is supported by the record evidence as a whole and is not arbitrary or capricious. Department Counsel has demonstrated that the Judge's favorable conclusions under Guideline E run contrary to the record evidence as a whole, and are based on arbitrary and capricious reasoning. Favorable decision reversed.

10/12/2005

Applicant was twice arrested for alcohol related offenses. In 1992 and 1998, he was treated for alcohol dependence and in 2004, he was evaluated and his profile matched that of an individual with a substance abuse or dependence disorder. He currently drinks a six pack of beer each night. Applicant 's financial problems no longer raise security concerns. However, the record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from his alcohol consumption. Clearance is denied.

10/12/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate financial concerns arising from delinquent debts in excess of $13,000.00 arising while he was in the Air Force between 1997 and 2001. He was in a debt consolidation program in 2002 but withdrew from it when creditors expressed dissatisfaction. He recently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Clearance is denied.

10/11/2005

Applicant is a 41-year-old supply technician who has worked for the same defense contractor since January 2003. After completing his security clearance application, a number of debts and delinquencies were discovered. Applicant claimed he paid off one debt and attempted to work with his creditors on the remaining debts, but he failed to corroborate these assertions with substantive documentation. Moreover, he admitted that he deliberately failed to disclose his delinquent obligations, partly because he feared it would jeopardize his security clearance application. Applicant has failed to meet his burden. Clearance is denied.

10/11/2005

Applicant has a history of criminal conduct concerns to include four convictions in 1997 one for obstructing highways and public passages in February, one for disorderly conduct in May, and two for disorderly conduct in November. In May 2001, he was convicted of simple assault, violation of the Uniform Firearms Act (a third degree felony), and two counts of recklessly endangering another person. In February 2002, he was convicted of simple assault, recklessly endangering another person and driving under the influence. Applicant has not mitigated this past conduct. Clearance is denied.

10/11/2005

Applicant's mother, a permanent U.S. resident, and a brother, whose status is "Humanitarian Parole Indefinite," are citizens of Afghanistan. His wife, a permanent U.S. resident, is a citizen of the Republic of Georgia. His other brother and sister are U.S. citizens. All of these relatives live in the U.S. Applicant's ex-wife and son, who is a U.S. citizen, live in Germany. Applicant has an aunt living in Afghanistan. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate his relatives' foreign citizenship. Clearance is granted.

10/07/2005

Applicant works for a defense contractor as a mail handler and courier. In 1987, Applicant was the victim of a near-fatal automobile accident, which resulted in extensive medical bills and inability to work much of the time over the next five years. Applicant attempted to resolve the delinquent debts through Chapter 13 bankruptcy actions, but his inability to work made him unable to maintain the required payments. Additionally, Applicant's wife divorced him, generating numerous additional debts. Applicant later discharged his debts in bankruptcy and resolved most of his unpaid debts, mitigating the security concerns. Clearance is granted.

10/07/2005

Applicant has worked for a defense contractor for the last ten years. In December 2003, he married a woman born in the People's Republic of China, who now resides with him in the United States. They are expecting a baby in January 2006. While he has no real contact with her family, she continues to have regular contact with her father and sister who live in the People's Republic of China. He has mitigated the government's concerns under Guideline B. Clearance is granted.

10/07/2005

Department Counsel is not required to present direct or objective evidence of nexus. There is a rebuttable presumption of nexus between admitted or proven conduct that falls under any of the Directive's Guidelines and an applicant's security eligibility. The government is not required to wait until an applicant commits a security violation before it can render an unfavorable security clearance decision. Security clearance decisions are not limited to consideration of an applicant's conduct on the job. Off-duty conduct can be considered in evaluating an applicant's security eligibility. Applicant's history of episodic alcohol abuse provided a rational basis for the Judge's adverse conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/07/2005

Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. Applicant has not shown that the Judge acted in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law when he weighed the record evidence. Nothing in the record indicates or suggests that the Judge precluded Applicant from having a reasonable opportunity to present his case. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant is not entitled to have the case remanded so that he can present new evidence for consideration in his case. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/07/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his more than $19,000 in delinquent debts. Clearance is denied.

10/07/2005

Applicant is 48 years old and has worked for a federal contractor since 1989. Applicant used marijuana from 1977 to 2002, and was arrested three times for drug offenses. During that time Applicant intended to stop using marijuana, but had relapses. Applicant used marijuana after he started the security clearance application process. Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt during this period and has taken little action to resolve it. Applicant has not been in criminal trouble since 1998. Although Applicant has not used marijuana since 2002, based on his long history of drug use and relapses, it is too soon to conclude he is successfully rehabilitated. Applicant has mitigated the criminal conduct concerns, but failed to mitigate the drug and financial concerns. Clearance is denied.

10/06/2005

Applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol on three occasions from 1992 to 2001. He successfully completed an alcohol counseling program required as a condition of probation entered in the third case. Applicant failed to disclose his first two arrests and his participation in alcohol counseling on his Security Clearance Application (SF 86) submitted in February 2003. He has maintained total sobriety since September 2003, without recurrence of any substance abuse issues, and he demonstrated other positive changes in his personal lifestyle since retiring from the Navy in 2002. Applicant successfully mitigated security concerns arising from his alcohol consumption and personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

10/06/2005

Applicant is a 47-year-old man and the sole owner and a key management official for a computer services company. He is a twice-convicted sex offender who is under a suspended sentence to confinement in his state of residence, and who is now on supervised probation in another state. As a result of the convictions, he is a registered sex offender. Applicant is unable to successfully mitigate or extenuate the related security concerns. Clearance is denied.

10/06/2005

Applicant's financial problems continue to raise security concerns because of her delay in resolving debts of approximately $10,000 to fifteen creditors. While Applicant's circumstances have some sympathetic elements as she was unemployed for an 18-month period, in the final analysis, after she regained employment in 2001 she failed to develop a plan to resolve all her debts in a timely manner. Thus, she has not demonstrated sufficiently that she has made a good-faith effort to resolve all her debts and to reform her financial practices. While she filed for bankruptcy protection in March 2005, none of her debts has yet been discharged. Security concerns over her personal conduct are also serious, as she failed to disclose required information on her security form. Clearance is denied.

10/06/2005

Applicant was born in France and worked for the French government on a joint international project with the United States. After serving with his native government for over 26 years he retired in 1996 and chose to remain in the United States. Applicant became a United States citizen in 2000. Applicant's mother, sister, and two sons are citizens and residents of France. Applicant owns real property, stocks, and has a bank account in France, and is entitled to a French government pension when he attains the appropriate age. Applicant formed a company in the United States and used his contacts in France to gain contracts. Applicant has dissolved the company and mitigated the outside activity security concerns. However, Applicant has failed to mitigate the foreign influence security concerns with regards to his family and financial interests in France. Clearance is denied.

10/06/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. DOHA proceedings are not a proper forum for litigating or evaluating the performance of DSS personnel or the quality of their investigations. Even if the quality of the DSS investigation of Applicant were a proper subject for review in these proceedings, Applicant has failed to raise a colorable claim that the DSS investigation prejudiced her right to have her security eligibility decided based on a complete record. The procedural history of this case shows Applicant was aware of the evidence that Department Counsel was presenting in support of its case against her, Applicant had the opportunity to object to or otherwise respond to that evidence, and Applicant had the opportunity to present additional evidence for the Administrative Judge to consider in her case. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/06/2005

Department Counsel is not required to present evidence that Applicant poses a clear and present danger to the national security, or present evidence that Applicant has mishandled classified information. Applicant has not demonstrated the Administrative Judge erred by concluding that the facts and circumstances of Applicant's ties and contacts with immediate family members in Iran placed him in a position of vulnerability to foreign influence. Applicant has not demonstrated the Judge failed to evaluate his case under the whole person concept. Adverse decision affirmed.

10/06/2005

Given the lack of believability of initially incurring the financial difficulties, the 12 month period since his Chapter 7 discharge of almost $24,000.00 in March 2004 represents insufficient time by itself to justify an affirmative finding that Applicant has made the necessary changes in his financial habits to warrant access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

10/06/2005

Applicant was potentially susceptible to foreign preference where his father was a citizen and resident of South Korea, and where he had continued contact with long- time friends now employed by the South Korean government--a government known to target U.S. financial interests in its intelligence operations. Clearance denied.

10/05/2005

Applicant is a 46-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has a long history of failing to meet his financial obligations, demonstrated by an inability and unwillingness to pay his debts extending from about 1986 to the present. His delinquent debts were discharged in bankruptcy in November 1998, but he continued to act irresponsibly in his financial affairs and subsequently accrued more delinquent debt. Applicant took some preliminary steps to begin to sort out his financial problems, but has not made significant progress in resolving his delinquent debts. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from his financial difficulties. Clearance is denied.

10/05/2005

Applicant is an Israeli citizen by birth. In 1990, at the age of 14, he became a naturalized U.S. citizen. In 1997, he obtained an Israeli passport and traveled to visit his grandmother on two occasions. She has since died. Applicant has surrendered his passport to the appropriate authorities and has taken steps to renounce his Israeli citizenship. Application is granted.

10/05/2005

Applicant has a long history of alcohol-related offenses away from work, including arrests and convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol in November 1984, driving while intoxicated in October 1989, driving under the influence of alcohol (reckless driving) in November 1998, and driving under the influence of alcohol in November 2001. He wrongfully failed to report the first three alcohol-related incidents and a felony charge for cocaine possession on his security clearance application in 2003. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his alcohol consumption and his personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

10/05/2005

Applicant's mother and three brothers are citizens of, or resident in, Libya. Applicant failed to mitigate foreign influence security concerns. Clearance is denied.

10/05/2005

In January 2000, Applicant, an American citizen by birth, married a Russian citizen with whom he still lives. Applicant's wife's parents (now divorced), grandmother, and a great aunt, still live in and are citizens of Russia. Applicant's wife maintains regular contact with her mother. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline B arising from his ties of affection or obligation to foreign citizens. Clearance is denied.

10/05/2005

Applicant's claim of factual error by the Administrative Judge raises a question about the hearing transcript that leaves the Board unable to resolve this issue at this time in a manner that is fair to the parties. There is no indication in the case file that the parties were informed about changes to the hearing transcript that appear to have been made by the Judge. If the Board were to decide the merits of Applicant's claim of factual error at this time, it would be faced with the dilemma of deciding the evidentiary status of the hearing transcript in the case file versus the evidentiary status of the hearing transcript provided to Applicant. Such a decision would touch upon fundamental questions of due process and evidence that warrant the Board giving the parties an opportunity to be heard before such a decision is attempted. Case remanded with instructions.

10/04/2005

The Applicant was an officer in the South Vietnamese Air Force, who had to flee Vietnam with the fall of Saigon in 1975. His 88 year old mother is a citizen of and resides in Vietnam. He sends her between $100~$200 every two to four months to help with her medical expenses. The Applicant returned to Vietnam from December of 1997 to January of 1998 to attend his father's funeral. He has three sisters and one brother, who are also citizens of and reside in Vietnam. He has seen them once in 30 years. The Applicant's brother is a truck driver. The Applicant also has a 16~17 year old niece who is a citizen of and resides in Vietnam. None of the Applicant's foreign relatives is connected with any foreign government, nor are they subject to coercion. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

09/30/2005

Applicant is a mechanic for a defense contractor. He was arrested and convicted four times for driving under the influence. He attended and completed two alcohol treatment programs, but continues to drink alcohol. He has delinquent debts that he has not satisfied or attempted to pay. He deliberately omitted three of his convictions for driving under the influence, and did not list all of his delinquent debts on his security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

09/30/2005

Applicant is a 25-year-old consultant for a defense contractor. Applicant, while attending college, worked part-time for a medical practice. After graduating from college and working for the defense contractor, he forged a prescription at the medical practice to obtain a drug for himself. When the doctor in the medical practice learned of the forged prescription, Applicant's part-time employment was terminated. When questioned about his employment by a security investigator, Applicant did not reveal the forgery or the real reasons for his termination. Clearance is denied.

09/30/2005

Applicant deliberately falsified his security clearance application by failing to list that he had been arrested and charged with felony theft and possession of marijuana. He presented no credible evidence to mitigate his falsifications. Clearance is denied.

09/30/2005

Applicant was born in Taiwan and is now a U.S. citizen. His father is a U.S. citizen and his mother a citizen of Taiwan. Both parents are elderly, in poor health, and reside in a private nursing home in Taiwan, paid for by Applicant and his siblings. Applicant's sister is a citizen and resident of Taiwan and cares for their parents. Applicant's other three sisters and brother are citizens and residents of the U.S. His mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens of Taiwan residing in the U.S. Applicant used his Taiwanese passport to travel to Taiwan three times, but he surrendered it when he learned it raised security concerns. The security concerns based on foreign preference and foreign influence are mitigated. Clearance is granted.

09/30/2005

Applicant's mother and three sisters are citizens and residents of Lebanon. His older brother is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Lebanon. Applicant has traveled to Lebanon at least nine times since 1995 to visit his family. Applicant's familial ties to citizens and residents of Lebanon raise serious security concerns because they could be exploited by terrorist groups operating inside Lebanon, resulting in the compromise of classified information. Clearance is denied.

09/30/2005

Applicant is a project manager for a defense contractor. He abused prescription drugs from 1994 to 1997. In 1997, he entered a drug rehabilitation program and informed his employer of his drug abuse problem. He passed drug tests until 2000 when he again started to abuse the same prescription drugs. He abused the drugs until 2002 when he again entered the drug treatment program. He has since completed the program, and obtained a clean bill of health from medical professionals with an excellent prognosis for no future drug abuse. He has been drug-free for over 30 months with clean random drug tests. He initially did not list his drug abuse on his security clearance application, but has since fully disclosed the issue. Applicant mitigated security concerns for drug involvement and personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

09/30/2005

Applicant is a civilian employee of a defense contractor and has worked as a steam engineer for a boiler plant on a military installation for over 26 years. In August 2001, local authorities charged Applicant with child molestation in the first degree, a felony that carried a possible life sentence. In January 2002, pursuant to a plea agreement, Applicant pled guilty through an Alford plea to the misdemeanor offense of Communication with a Minor for Immoral Purposes. The court found him guilty and sentenced him. In later sworn statements to defense investigators, Applicant admitted the conviction but denied committing the actual offense. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his conviction for unlawful sexual behavior and the allegations of falsification. Clearance is denied.

09/30/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns regarding foreign preference and foreign influence since he did not take steps to surrender his Taiwan passport and renounce his citizenship, until faced with the possibility of being unable to obtain a security clearance for a position he took in 2003, even though he had been a U.S. citizen since 1999. He and his wife have extensive family in Taiwan, and he renewed and used his Taiwan passport after becoming a U.S. citizen. Clearance is denied.

09/30/2005

Applicant was born in Israel of Israeli parents. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in October 1996 but used his Israeli passport to enter and exit Israel in January 2001. He executed a security clearance application (SF 86) in May 2003 and answered "no" to the question whether he held an active foreign passport during the last seven years. He surrendered his expired Israeli passport and renounced his Israeli citizenship in August 2005. The security concern based on foreign preference is mitigated, but the concern based on falsification of the SF 86 is not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

09/30/2005

Applicant's liabilities were discharged in bankruptcy in 1993. Because of medical issues and his wife's unemployment, his financial delinquencies eventually continued so that newer accounts became delinquent and charged off and sent to collection. He also fell behind in making certain federal and state income tax payments. Applicant's actions in obtaining credit counseling as well as his continuing efforts to resolve all past outstanding financial obligations, while constrained by available income, have successfully mitigated or overcome the government's case. The questions and doubts as to his security eligibility and suitability have been satisfied. Clearance is granted.

09/30/2005

Applicant falsified his security clearance application regarding his alcohol offenses, his use of marijuana, and the treatments he had received for alcohol dependence. While he mitigated security concerns about his alcohol-related conduct, he failed to mitigate concerns about his falsifications. Clearance is denied.

09/30/2005

Over the past 14 years, Applicant has acquired 25 debts and three judgments totaling approximately $50,000.00. She falsified her security clearance application (SCA) and her answers to interrogatories. She continues to deny any knowledge of the debts. Applicant has failed to mitigate the governments security concerns about her financial indebtedness, personal conduct, and criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

09/30/2005

Applicant is 49 years old and works for a federal contractor. Applicant has held a top security clearance for 15 years and had access to secret compartmented information. Applicant sexually molested his infant daughter in 1982, and exhibited questionable sexual behavior with his minor son and niece until at least 1998. In the 1980s, Applicant had incidences of shoplifting and theft. In 1993, Applicant transported and harbored an illegal alien for six months, who later became the mother of his adopted son. Applicant intentionally circumvented border control authorities to help her gain access. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding his sexual behavior, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

09/30/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns arising from his failure to resolve delinquent debts by paying some of the debt and arranging payment on other debt. Applicant's security clearance application contains inaccurate information, but falsification was not established. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from Applicant's debts. Clearance is granted.

09/30/2005

Applicant is a long haul truck driver who is employed by a federal contractor. From 1965 to 1985, Applicant was arrested, charged and/or convicted of sixteen alcohol related incidents. He was convicted and sentenced to two years in jail for one of the offenses and served over one year in jail. The provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 986 apply. Applicant is a recovering alcoholic, has not consumed any alcoholic beverage in twenty years, attended Alcoholics Anonymous, and has no criminal offenses on his record since becoming sober. Applicant is successfully rehabilitated. I recommend a waiver of the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 986.

09/30/2005

Applicant has a history of criminal conduct from domestic violence and shoplifting in 1999 to failing to file his federal income tax returns for tax years 1999, 2001, and 2002, and his state tax return for tax year 1999. Applicant also has delinquent debts totaling more than $4,900. Applicant deliberately provided false information to a Defense Security Service agent investigating his suitability for a clearance. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his criminal and personal conduct, and his financial situation. Clearance is denied.

09/30/2005

Considering the record as a whole, the Board concludes that the Administrative Judge had sufficient record evidence to find that Applicant falsified a security clearance application when he did not disclose that he quit his job with the Department of Defense under unfavorable circumstances. Applicant has not shown that the Judge erred by concluding Applicant failed to present evidence that sufficiently extenuated or mitigated his past use of cocaine. The Judge articulated reasons why he concluded Applicant demonstrated poor judgment, and a pattern of dishonesty and rule violations. The Judge's adverse conclusions follow rationally from his findings of fact, do not run contrary to the record evidence as a whole, and provide a legally permissible basis for his unfavorable security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/30/2005

Applicant has a history of criminal, financial, and personal conduct concerns. Applicant was criminally charged with failure to pay child support and contempt in 1993. Financial considerations concerns arose as a result of Applicant owing 15 creditors in excess of $76,000.00. Personal conduct concerns arose as a result of Applicant failing to list all past judgments and civil law suits filed against him on his security clearance application. Applicant has successfully mitigated criminal and personal conduct concerns. However, he has not mitigated financial considerations concerns and has failed to submit any evidence showing debts have been or are being resolved. Clearance is denied.

09/30/2005

Applicant, a U.S. citizen by birth, obtained foreign citizenship, held a foreign passport, obtained a foreign government security clearance, and voted in foreign elections while living abroad for business reasons from 1991 until 1998. His wife and children, also U.S. citizens by birth, lived abroad with Applicant, and obtained the same foreign citizenship. Applicant and his family now live in the United States, and he renounced his foreign citizenship and returned his foreign passport. The Guideline B concerns stemming from his family's ongoing foreign citizenship and minimal contacts with foreign nationals are mitigated; however, he has failed to mitigate the Guideline C concerns about possible foreign preference. Clearance is denied.

09/29/2005

Applicant is a 40-year-old employee of a federal contractor. When Applicant was 23 years old he was arrested and convicted of trafficking cocaine. He was sentenced to and served three years in prison. Since Applicant's arrest he has dedicated himself to turning life around and he has been successful. Applicant has led an exemplary life. He is a valued family man, employee, and member of the community. Applicant is successfully rehabilitated. However, mitigation of the disqualifying condition is not sufficient to grant Applicant a security clearance. Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 986, absent a waiver, the Defense Department cannot grant a security clearance TO any person convicted and sentenced in any court in the United States for a crime and incarcerated as a result of that sentence for at least one year. The provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 986 apply. Clearance is denied.

09/29/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. There is no right under Executive Order 10865, the Directive, or federal administrative law for the record to be kept open indefinitely so a party can supplement the record evidence. As a matter of practical necessity, the opportunity to offer evidence for an Administrative Judge to consider must come to a close and a security clearance decision rendered in a case. Applicant had the opportunity to respond to the File of Relevant Material and to present evidence for the Judge to consider in his case. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/29/2005

Applicant is a 33-year-old veteran who has worked for a federal contractor since 2001. Applicant accumulated delinquent debt while on active duty and continued to add to his debt after he was discharged from the service in 1999. Applicant was unemployed for a short period of time in 1999, but has been fully employed since then and his salary has steadily increased in the past six years. Applicant has made minimal effort to resolve his delinquent debts. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding his financial situation. Clearance is denied.

09/29/2005

Applicant married a woman from the Ukraine whom he met on the Internet. She and her son, also a Ukrainian, emigrated to the U.S. and will apply for U.S. citizenship when eligible in October 2005. Her mother and sister are citizen residents of the Ukraine. Applicant mitigated foreign influence security concerns. Clearance is granted.

09/29/2005

Applicant is a native of the Republic of Korea (ROK) and a naturalized U.S. citizen. His father, mother, and sister are citizens of the ROK. Applicant's mother is a permanent U.S. resident and lives with Applicant in a home they jointly own. Applicant's father intends to move to the U.S., but has remained temporarily in the ROK to care for his aging mother. Applicant's sister is a permanent U.S. resident but works in the ROK for a U.S.-owned company. Applicant visited his family four times in the ROK and once in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) between 1996 and 2002. The security concern based on foreign influence is mitigated. Clearance is granted.

09/29/2005

Applicant was sentenced to 18-30 months imprisonment for aggravated assault, and served 13 months in prison. The provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 986 require denial of his clearance. Clearance denied.

09/29/2005

Applicant, a 42-year-old employee of a defense contractor, failed to file and pay federal income taxes from 1993-1995. After receiving notice of this default from the IRS in 2000, she has failed to repay the back taxes. She has not mitigated the security concerns arising from her financial difficulties. Clearance is denied.

09/29/2005

There is no presumption of error below. The Administrative Judge's findings of fact that are not challenged stand on appeal and need not be reviewed to decide this appeal. Applicant's disagreement with the Judge's conclusions about the security significance of his ties and contacts with his mother and sister in the People's Republic of China does not demonstrate the Judge erred. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/29/2005

The Administrative Judge erred by basing his unfavorable decision on conduct not alleged in the SOR. Adverse decision reversed.

09/29/2005

Applicant has successfully mitigated the financial considerations security concern based on his payment of delinquent debts and his stable financial condition. But he deliberately falsified his response to Question 37 of a security-clearance application completed in December 2000 when he failed to disclose an unpaid judgment for approximately $1,500 entered against him in October 2000. His explanation or claim of mistake or misunderstanding is not credible given the totality of circumstances. Clearance is denied.

09/28/2005

Applicant's history of financial indebtedness partially caused by he and his wife's loss of employment, and partially caused by poor money management has been mitigated by a good faith effort to repay his creditors or otherwise resolve his financial indebtedness, and an improved manner of handling his financial affairs. Clearance is granted.

09/28/2005

Applicant's financial problems led him to petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 1993. When he failed to maintain monthly payments to his trustee, his petition was dismissed in 1996. He filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in March 2005, and the court discharged his debts in June 2005. Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies and bad debts. His long-standing financial problems raise security concerns which he failed to mitigate. Clearance is denied.

09/28/2005

Applicant incurred significant debt following his discharge from military service and resulting periodic employment. He is now steadily employed, has resolved most of his unpaid debt, and is currently working to resolve his one remaining unpaid debt. The evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the financial concerns raised as a result of Applicant's excessive debt. Clearance is granted.

09/28/2005

Applicant's financial indebtedness remains current and he has not made a good faith effort to resolve his debts. Clearance is denied.

09/28/2005

Applicant is 31 years old and has been employed by a federal contractor since 2001. Applicant was terminated in 2001, from a job at a bank for misusing their computer system by conducting transactions on her own accounts. Applicant was attempting to manipulate her accounts to cover insufficient funds. It was a violation of bank policy for an employee to handle transactions on her personal accounts. Applicant was having financial problems at the time and continues to have numerous delinquent debts. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding personal conduct and financial considerations. The government failed to meet its burden under Guideline M, misuse of information technology systems because the computer Applicant was misusing was not used for classified or sensitive information. Clearance is denied.

09/28/2005

Applicant and her husband are naturalized U.S. citizens who were born and raised in Iran. Applicant's mother is a resident of the U.S., but travels to Iran on occasion. Applicant obtained and used an Iranian passport after becoming a U.S. citizen and obtaining a U.S. passport. She traveled to Iran on the passport in 2000 and 2002, but has since relinquished it to the appropriate Iranian authorities. Applicant's mother travels to Iran on occasion. Applicant's aunt, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and four brothers-in-law and their wives are all citizen residents of Iran. Applicant mitigated foreign preference security concerns, but not foreign influence security concerns. Clearance is denied.

09/28/2005

A person seeking to rebut the presumption that an Administrative Judge is fair and impartial has a heavy burden of persuasion. An appealing party's personal belief that a Judge is biased is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of impartiality. Rather, the standard is whether the record of the proceedings below contains anything that would provide a basis for a disinterested person to reasonably question the fairness and impartiality of the Judge. Generalized claims of "xenophobia" and "witch hunts" are indiscriminate accusations of organizational bad faith and institutional misconduct that have no legitimate place in these proceedings and fail to raise any colorable claim of bias or appearance of bias. Applicant's specific claim of bias or the appearance of bias identifies statements made by the Judge that could lead a disinterested person to reasonably question whether the Judge evaluated Applicant's case based on a fair and impartial consideration of the record evidence in light of the applicable law, or whether the Judge evaluated Applicant's case, in part, based on his personal opinion about matters that have no bearing whatsoever on Applicant's security eligibility. Case remanded with instructions.

09/28/2005

Applicant was convicted in May 1982 of theft by unlawful taking, a second degree misdemeanor, after he used a BB gun to rob a gas station attendant. Applicant was denied a security clearance because of 10 U.S.C. § 986 and failure to show adequate rehabilitation of his criminal conduct. Applicant appealed, and the DOHA Appeal Board remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the October 2004 amendments to 10 U.S.C. § 986. Since Applicant was incarcerated only 15 days, 10 U.S.C. § 986 as amended does not bar the grant or renewal of a security clearance to Applicant. Criminal conduct concerns remain unmitigated where he shows little appreciation for the seriousness of his past misconduct. Clearance is denied.

09/28/2005

Applicant's possession, use, and renewal of a foreign passport after becoming a U.S. citizen demonstrated a foreign preference and was not mitigated where Applicant had neither surrendered the passport nor obtained formal approval for its use. However, the record did not support allegations that Applicant falsified his clearance application. Clearance denied.

09/28/2005

Applicant's history of indebtedness is mitigated by (1) the isolated nature of the conduct, (2) the remedial measures taken to prevent future financial difficulties, and (3) his good-faith effort to settle both debts. Though the omission of both debts from his security clearance application (SCA) in May 2002 resulted from unusual as well as confounding circumstances, the credit bureau report (CBR) provided Applicant a good-faith though misplaced belief the one debt was paid. The omission of the other debt was based on oversight and his impression (later confirmed by the three credit agencies) the debt was not his responsibility. Clearance is granted.

09/28/2005

Applicant was employed with a private company and was accused by a co-worker several times of consuming alcohol on the job. After the first incident, his employer arranged and paid for him to receive alcohol counseling which he successfully completed. Applicant was ultimately fired from his job when he was accused of a subsequent alcohol-related event at work. Applicant did not disclose the information concerning his alcohol counseling on his SF 86 filed about a year later. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by alcohol consumption and personal conduct issues. Clearance is denied.

09/28/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant's claim that he is being singled out falls far short of raising a colorable claim that his case was not handled in good faith. Given the record evidence in the case, the Administrative Judge properly concluded that Applicant had the burden of presenting evidence to refute, explain, extenuate or mitigate the security concerns raised under Guideline B by the totality of his ties and contacts with six siblings who live in and are citizens of Sudan. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/28/2005

The Applicant misused his present employer's information technology systems on four separate occasions more than ten years ago. This misuse also constitutes a pattern of rule violations. He has recently disclosed this misuse to his employer; and as such, is not vulnerable to coercion, exploitation or duress. The Misuse of Information Technology Systems is also not recent. Those who know and work with the Applicant think most highly of him. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

09/26/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns arising from his failure to resolve delinquent debts by paying the majority of his debts and making regular and systematic payments on the one remaining debt. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from a debt of such magnitude. Clearance is granted.

09/26/2005

Given the record evidence in this case, it was arbitrary and capricious for the Administrative Judge to conclude that Applicant's acts of masturbating in his car in a parking lot on approximately 20 occasions were not sexual in nature. The Judge's failure to apply Sexual Behavior Disqualifying Conditions 1 and 4 was arbitrary and capricious because it ran contrary to the Judge's own findings of fact about Applicant's conduct. Department Counsel failed to demonstrate that the Judge was compelled to conclude, as a matter of law, that Sexual Behavior Disqualifying Conditions 2 and 3 were applicable to Applicant's case. Department Counsel's lack of candor argument fails to demonstrate the Judge erred. Considering the record as a whole and the Judge's own findings of fact, the Judge failed to articulate a rational basis for his conclusion that Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition 6 applied. Favorable decision reversed.

09/23/2005

Applicant mitigated foreign influence security concerns over his family ties in Iraq; only two brothers and his wife's family remain citizens of Iraq and reside there. Applicant has strong ties to the U.S. and has demonstrated working as a translator for U.S. interests in Iraq on two assignments that he can and will put U.S. security interests ahead of his family ties. In his 2005 assignment in Iraq, he learned that both of his parents died, but he did not attend either of their funerals as his assignment would not permit it. Applicant's assurances that he would put U.S. interests over any Iraqi family ties are supported by his positive character and work assessments. Clearance is granted.

09/23/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate personal conduct allegation for failure to report on his SF 86 a 1995 arrest for drug use and possession and an alcohol/drug related driving offense. Applicant's security interviewer had provided an opportunity to him to offer any new information to correct the SF 86 and to change the draft statement. He declined to do so. Applicant's signed sworn statement admitted that omission was because of a fear that to do so would be prejudicial to obtaining a security clearance. so. Clearance is denied.

09/23/2005

Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated in 1988 and one criminal felony offense in 1991. He was convicted of both and sentenced by the courts. His criminal record and driving record show no further similar activity. In 1998, Applicant resigned from his employment at the request of his employer. He deliberately failed to disclose this resignation in his security application. The security concerns raised by his criminal conduct have been mitigated by the passage of time and his successful rehabilitation. However, the security concerns raised under Guideline E, Personal Conduct, have not been mitigated. Clearance is denied.

09/23/2005

Applicant is employed by a defense contractor. He was charged with and convicted of possession of marijuana in 2002. On his security application in 2003, he responded "NO" to the question concerning being charged with or convicted of any offense involving alcohol or drugs. He did inform security investigators of the offense when interviewed by them. Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns for his criminal conduct and his personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

09/23/2005

Applicant's personal conduct and financial problems continue to raise security concerns over his failure to resolve his debts to a number of creditors and because he gave false answers on a Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions, Standard Form (SF) 85 P. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns caused by his financial irresponsibility and personal conduct that arises from the falsification of the SF 85P. Trustworthiness determination is denied.

09/23/2005

Applicant's parents and two siblings are citizens and residents of Lebanon. His brother is a citizen and resident of France. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from his foreign relatives. Clearance is granted.

09/23/2005

Applicant was arrested several times between 1983 and 2003. He admits the underlying criminal conduct for those arrests. Applicant does not accept that he has an alcohol problem. Although he no longer consumes alcohol, he failed to mitigate the criminal conduct security concerns raised by his lengthy criminal history. Clearance is denied.

09/23/2005

There is no presumption of error below. Because Applicant has not challenged the Administrative Judge's findings of fact about his history of financial difficulties, those findings of fact stand and need not be reviewed to decide this appeal. Applicant's appeal is based on a proffer of new evidence, which the Board cannot consider on appeal. As a practical matter, there must be finality to any judicial or administrative proceeding, and there is no right to have the record kept open indefinitely so a party can update the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/23/2005

Applicant's financial problems continue to raise security concerns over his failure to resolve $34,000 in debt owed to ten creditors. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from a debt of such magnitude. Clearance is denied.

09/23/2005

The Lebanese citizenship, residence, and/or connection to the Lebanese government may pose an unacceptable security risk that can only be mitigated with substantial evidence demonstrating these family members do not constitute an unacceptable risk, particularly given the instability of the Lebanese government. Clearance is denied.

09/23/2005

It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Administrative Judge to consider the record evidence of Applicant's past trips to Taiwan in evaluating the security significance of her more recent trips there and her stated intention to travel there in the future. Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge was not required to conclude Applicant's contacts with relatives in Taiwan were casual and infrequent enough to warrant application of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 3. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge erred by not applying Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 4 or giving an explanation for why he did not apply it. Since the SOR did not allege, and there is no record evidence that Applicant has financial interests in Taiwan, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to not address Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 5. By possessing and using a Taiwanese passport after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen, Applicant exercised the rights and privileges of Taiwanese citizenship. The Board does not have to agree with the Judge to conclude that Applicant has not demonstrated harmful error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/23/2005

In 1997, Applicant had debts discharged in bankruptcy. Since that time she has incurred numerous debts that have been delinquent for some time. She has had two Chapter 13 bankruptcies dismissed because she was unable to make the payments to the trustee. Applicant mitigated the criminal conduct concerns, but was unable to mitigate security concerns raised by her substantial indebtedness that she cannot pay. Clearance is denied.

09/23/2005

Applicant--a retired Navy Captain who served in the cryptography community--failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his multiple security violations, which were both deliberate and negligent. Clearance denied.

09/23/2005

Applicant's financial problems continue to raise security concerns over his failure to resolve approximately $9,500 in debt to six creditors. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from a debt of such magnitude. Clearance is denied.

09/22/2005

In 2002, Applicant resorted to trespassing when she entered her ex-husband's residence, over his objections, to retrieve a computer her friend had loaned her son. Her ex-husband's overreaction in denying her possession of the computer and in grabbing her against her will, and holding onto her until he fell out of his wheelchair, through no fault of Applicant, according to the police, constituted domestic assault. She was convicted only of criminal trespass. In 2003, she was convicted of DUI when, after drinking with her second husband for several hours and having a dispute with him, she drove her automobile into a car carrying him. Following a March 1986 drug-related arrest, all charges were dropped. She is considered fully rehabilitated. The questions and doubts as to her security eligibility and suitability have been satisfied. Clearance is granted.

09/22/2005

Applicant's disclosures about his conduct and circumstances did not preclude the Administrative Judge from considering the security significance of his admitted conduct and circumstances. Considering the record as a whole, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude that Applicant had not presented evidence sufficient to extenuate or mitigate the security concerns raised under Guideline B and Guideline E. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/22/2005

Department Counsel does not have to present evidence to disprove the applicability of an Adjudicative Guidelines mitigating condition; rather, the applicant has the burden of presenting evidence sufficient to warrant application of such a mitigating condition. The record evidence does not support the Administrative Judge's application of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 3 to Applicant's contacts with immediate family members in Taiwan. The record evidence does not support the Judge's application of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1. Applicant has failed to establish a basis for affirming the Judge's decision on alternate grounds. Favorable decision reversed.

09/21/2005

Applicant's abuse of alcohol and marijuana caused him to be terminated from his job in April 2003. He has been alcohol and drug abstinent since at least September 2003, and drastically altered his lifestyle. Clearance is granted.

09/21/2005

Applicant, who has held a security clearance for over 20 years, mitigated allegation of foreign influence concerning marriage to a citizen of Ukraine. He traveled there twice in 1999 and 2000, and has wife's mother and uncle still live there, but his wife is now a naturalized U.S. citizen and neither he nor his wife have traveled there since their marriage in 2000. Her mother visits annually in the U.S. for extended periods. His relatives have no connection with the government of Ukraine. He is highly regarded in his profession by his associates and managers. Applying the whole person test, Clearance is granted.

09/21/2005

Applicant is an environmental engineer for a defense contractor. Applicant has used variations of his name, altered his birth certificate, obtained a diver's license using the altered birth certificate, failed to list criminal and drug offenses on his security clearance application, and use another name when arrested. He has been arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, possession of marijuana, driving while intoxicated, false pretenses, and contempt of court. Applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns for the above conduct. Clearance is denied.

09/21/2005

Identified discrepancies between an Administrative Judge's formal findings and the Judge's findings and conclusions in the body of the decision will be reviewed to determine whether they are harmful or harmless in nature. Applicant has failed to demonstrate the Judge erred in his application of pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Applicant has not demonstrated that the timing of the issuance of the decision in his case resulted in identifiable errors by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/21/2005

Applicant mitigated the security concerns by demonstrating that his family members living in Jordan were not agents of a foreign government or so situated as to provide a point of influence on Applicant. Clearance granted.

09/21/2005

Applicant is 60 years old and works for a federal contractor. Applicant has a long criminal history of fraud dealing with bad checks. Applicant also had a driving under the influence charge. Applicant falsified information on his security clearance application when he failed to divulge his DUI, delinquent debts, garnishments, and a tax lien. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding his criminal conduct and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

09/21/2005

Applicant has not demonstrated that the Administrative Judge imposed on him an impossible burden of proof or a burden of proof inconsistent with the provisions of Executive Order 10865 and the Directive. It was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for the Judge to make predictive judgments about Applicant's security eligibility. There is no right to a security clearance and no presumption in favor of granting or continuing one. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Applicant's ability to argue for an alternate interpretation of the record evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge's evaluation of the record evidence was arbitrary or capricious, or inconsistent with the whole person concept. The errors identified by the Applicant are harmless in nature. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/20/2005

Applicant was born in the Republic of Vietnam, now the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, in 1965. He became a United States citizen in 1993. While also born in the Republic of Vietnam, his wife, one of his sisters, one of his brothers, his mother-in-law, father-in-law are all United States citizens, living in the United States. His United States born children reside with him. Security concerns have been raised because Applicant's elderly mother, sister and brother are citizens of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and continue to reside there. Applicant has failed to mitigate security concerns arising from possible foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

09/20/2005

Applicant, was a dual citizen of Colombia and the United States, and routinely used a Colombian passport during travel to Colombia. His mother, rother, and an uncle reside in Colombia, and his wife is a Colombian citizen. Although he has renounced his Colombian citizenship and surrendered his Colombian passport, the residence of close family members in Colombia, and his prospective travel to that country create an unacceptable security risk. Clearance is denied.

09/20/2005

Applicant, a dual citizen of Jordan and the United States, used a Jordanian passport to travel to Syria in May 2001. His father, and, on occasion, mother reside in the United Arab Emirates, and his brother in Jordan. Although he has applied to surrender his Jordanian passport, there is no evidence he has actually done so. Clearance is denied.

09/20/2005

Board has inherent authority to entertain a request to reconsider its decisions. There is no right to reconsideration; rather, the Board has the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions. Applicant has failed to articulate any persuasive reason for the Board to change its resolution of the appeal issues addressed in its August 31, 2005 decision. Original Board decision stands.

09/20/2005

09/20/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Given the available record evidence, the Administrative Judge did not err by concluding Applicant had not demonstrated extenuation or mitigation of her history of financial difficulties sufficient to warrant a favorable security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/20/2005

Applicant is 29 years old and was born in Mexico. He has been employed in the U.S. for about seven years, but has continued to live in Mexico with his parents. Applicant stated on his Security Clearance Application (SF 86) that he and his parents resided in the U.S. He also failed to disclose five siblings on his SF 86, four of whom reside in Mexico. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns regarding Guideline E, Personal Conduct, and Guideline J, Criminal Conduct. Clearance is denied.

09/20/2005

Based on purported admissions Applicant made to a polygrapher, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals declined to grant Applicant a clearance on grounds of sexual behavior and personal conduct. The statement of reasons alleged Applicant downloaded pornographic images of children to his home computer and deliberately falsified material facts about this conduct in a statement to a Defense Security Service agent. Applicant mitigated sexual behavior and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is granted.

09/19/2005

Just because the Administrative Judge did not make findings or reach conclusions favorable to Department Counsel concerning the provenance of a disputed document, it does not follow that the Judge ignored that disputed document and other record evidence concerning it. The Judge erred by stating that Department Counsel did not offer evidence in support of its claim that a letter of recommendation was a forgery. However, it does not follow that the record evidence was such that the Judge was, as a matter of law, required to find the letter of recommendation was a forgery. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge's findings that Applicant did not engage in falsification as alleged in the SOR are sustainable. Department Counsel has not shown how the Judge violated the principle that doubts are to be resolved in favor of the national security. Favorable decision affirmed.

09/17/2005

Applicant is a 32-year-old native-born U.S. citizen who became a dual citizen of Turkey as a child through the actions of his parents, who also obtained a Turkish passport for him. He renewed that passport in 1992 and 2002. He has used both his Turkish and U.S. passports when entering Turkey. He retains both his Turkish citizenship and passport. He has three uncles and an aunt in Turkey, but the relationship is not a close one. He has a wife and child who are U.S. citizens. His answers to two questions on his security clearance application were either not deliberate or not shown to have been false. The retention of his Turkish passport violates the provision in a binding DoD memorandum that such retention requires the denial or revocation of a DoD security clearance. Adequate mitigation has not been established. Clearance is denied.

09/16/2005

Applicant's financial indebtedness remains current and he has not made a good faith effort to resolve his debts. His intentional falsifications on his security clearance application have not been mitigated. Clearance is denied.

09/16/2005

Under the Directive, the Administrative Judge has no obligation to gather information for either party in a case. It is the responsibility of each party to present evidence for the Judge to consider in a case. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. An party cannot fairly challenge a Judge's decision based on a proffer of new evidence. There is no right to have the record kept open so the parties can continuously provide new evidence for the Judge to consider. Given the record evidence available to the Judge, the Judge did not err by concluding that application of Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions 4 and 6 was not warranted in this case. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/15/2005

Applicant works in a family-owned over-the-road trucking company that does business with the Department of Defense. Applicant has a history of minor criminal offenses, including convictions for shoplifting in September 1988 and May 1992, and disorderly conduct in January 1999 and May 1999. Criminal charges for vandalism and resisting arrest in 1997 are still pending, and a bench warrant is still outstanding. Applicant also has some delinquent debts which accumulated while she was working to establish the new trucking business. Applicant has made progress toward mitigating her history of criminal conduct and financial difficulties. However, she has not resolved the outstanding criminal charges or financial problems that raise security concerns. Clearance is denied.

09/15/2005

Applicant abused alcohol until 2002, and resumed more moderate drinking between 2003 and 2004 after being diagnosed as alcohol dependent. He also used marijuana from the late 1970s until about 1998, and cocaine from 1998 until 2002. His conduct resulted in the loss of one job in 2001, two arrests for driving under the influence (DUI) in 1992 and 2000, and one arrest for drug possession in 1992. Balanced against his long history of substance abuse, Applicant's recent sobriety is insufficient to mitigate security concerns about his use of drugs and alcohol and related criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

09/15/2005

In January 2002, Applicant was arrested for multiple hunting violations committed in November-December 2001, including two felony counts of forging a public document pertaining to hunting. He was convicted of five misdemeanor hunting violations. The security concern based on criminal conduct is mitigated. Clearance is granted.

09/15/2005

Applicant used marijuana frequently between 1986 and 1997. He used several other controlled substances during that time on an experimental basis. Additionally, Applicant was arrested for several minor offenses between 1993 and 1995. Applicant failed to disclose the full extent of his abuse of controlled substances in a Security Clearance Application (SF 86) he submitted, and thereafter provided false information in a statement he made during his security clearance investigation. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concern that arises from his personal conduct in providing false answers in the SF 86 and during his interview. Clearance is denied.

09/15/2005

Applicant is forty-four years old and has been employed by a federal contractor since 1998. From 1983 through 2001, Applicant was arrested eight times for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol. He pled guilty to DUI five times, two times he pled guilty to reckless driving that was alcohol related and one DUI was nolle prossed. Applicant was also convicted of felony possession of marijuana. Applicant continues to consume alcohol. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his criminal conduct and his alcohol consumption. Clearance is denied.

09/15/2005

When Applicant applied for a security clearance, her credit report reflected delinquent debts to 11 separate creditors totaling about $18,000.00. After receiving the Statement of Reasons (SOR), she paid two debts totaling about $1,200.00. She rebutted a delinquent auto loan. She answered "no" to two questions on her security clearance application (SF 86) about delinquent debts, but she disclosed her bad credit record. She rebutted the allegation of falsifying her SF 86, but she did not mitigate the security concern based on financial considerations. Clearance is denied.

09/15/2005

Applicant was awarded the entire marital debt when he divorced in October 2001. Many of the larger debts quickly became severely delinquent. He has now satisfied most of the debts, is living within his means, and has resumed a financially stable lifestyle. Applicant has mitigated the security concern caused by the financial considerations that existed in this case. Clearance is granted.

09/15/2005

Applicant had a lengthy history of criminal conduct, including several drunk driving offenses, two burglaries, grand theft, and inflicting corporal injury on his spouse. He failed to list all of his felonies and alcohol-related offenses on his Questionnaire for National Security Positions. Applicant failed to mitigate criminal conduct and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

09/14/2005

Applicant's foreign family ties, his deliberate falsification of a sworn statement to DSS, and his past association, including membership and participation in a foreign terrorist organization, has not been mitigated. Clearance is denied.

09/14/2005

In 1997, as the result of a plea agreement, Applicant plead guilty to simple assault, following his arrest for aggravated assault, a felony. His concurrent misdemeanor charge for drunk in public was dismissed. Four years later, Applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence, a misdemeanor criminal offense. When completing his SF-86, Applicant stated that he had used the illicit drug ecstasy twice, when in fact he had used it three times. The security concerns raised by his criminal and personal conduct have been mitigated by the passage of time, his successful rehabilitation, and his unintentional failure to identify his last time using ecstasy. Clearance is granted

09/14/2005

A decision by a Hearing Office Administrative Judge is not legally binding precedent that must be followed by the Judge's colleagues in other cases. Application of the Adjudicative Guidelines is not reducible to a simple formula, but rather requires a Judge to exercise sound judgment within the parameters set by the Directive when deciding which Adjudicative Guidelines for or against clearance should be applied in a given case. Applicant has not shown the Judge misapplied the Adjudicative Guidelines pertaining to Criminal Conduct (Guideline J). Adverse decision affirmed.

09/14/2005

Applicant is a 37-year-old citizen who met and corresponded with a Russian citizen and resident via the Internet. Applicant visited Russia three times in 2002 to further their relationship and married her in 2003. Applicant's wife has family in Russia. Applicant provided financial support to his wife's family. He is planning a fourth trip to Russia in 2005. The security concerns are not mitigated by the evidence in the record. Clearance is denied.

09/14/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns involving alcohol abuse, personal conduct and misuse of a prescription drug. He continues to use alcohol after diagnosis of alcohol dependence and admitted to misuse of a painkiller for other purposes and failing to report it on his Security Clearance Application (SF 86). No mitigating conditions were established. Clearance is denied.

09/14/2005

Applicant's demonstrated sexual behavior and poor judgement disqualify him for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

09/14/2005

Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Administrative Judge's finding of falsification is sustainable. Because of the case-specific nature of credibility determinations, a credibility determination in one case has no precedential value in other cases. It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to consider the totality of Applicant's incidents rather than consider each incident separately. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/13/2005

The presence of some favorable evidence does not require an Administrative Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. Rather, a Judge must consider the record as a whole, decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence or vice versa, and reach a reasoned decision as to whether an applicant has met his or her burden of presenting evidence sufficient to warrant a favorable security clearance decision. Applicant's off-duty abuse of alcohol was sufficient to raise security concerns under Guideline G. Board does not have to agree with the Judge's weighing of the record evidence to conclude Applicant has not demonstrated the Judge weighed it in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/13/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant's right to have a hearing does not mean that he is entitled to have multiple hearings in his case. Furthermore, nothing in Executive Order 10865, the Directive, or general principles of federal administrative law gives the parties a right to supplement the record evidence continuously. Given the record evidence of Applicant's history of financial difficulties, the Judge was not compelled, as a matter of law, to conclude that the evidence presented by Applicant concerning his job performance and employment history was sufficient to rebut, mitigate, or extenuate the security concerns raised by his overall history of financial difficulties. Under the Directive, there is no authority to grant a conditional security clearance. The possible adverse effect of an unfavorable decision on Applicant's economic situation is not relevant or material to whether the Judge's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/13/2005

Applicant mitigated the security concerns by demonstrating that his family members living in Ghana were not agents of a foreign government or so situated as to provide a point of influence on Applicant, and that his financial interests were minimal. Clearance granted.

09/13/2005

Sixty-one year-old Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies. His dischargeable delinquent accounts were discharged by Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1997, but his inability to take control of his finances, exacerbated by periodic periods of unemployment, resulted in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing in 2001. That filing was dismissed because of his failure to comply with the provisions of his payment plan. While he purportedly made some superficial attempts to address some accounts, the evidence supports the conclusion that he paid little, if any, attention to his debts, and merely ignored them over an extended period. His lengthy period of inaction raises grave questions and doubts about his security eligibility and suitability. Clearance is denied.

09/12/2005

Applicant, a 46-year-old employee of a defense contractor, has a history of financial problems. Specifically, she has a history of being unable or unwilling to pay her debts and thereafter failing to take reasonable steps to satisfy her creditors. Applicant has not set up any plans to resolve her delinquencies, nor did she seek financial counseling. Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from her financial difficulties. Clearance is denied.

09/12/2005

Applicant used marijuana once in high school and took two or three puffs of marijuana 13 years later in August 2002 at a party celebrating her engagement. In October 2002, she signed a security clearance application (SF 86) that she had submitted in handwritten form in October 2001 and electronic form in February 2002, without reviewing it or updating her negative answers to two questions about illegal use of controlled substances. Security concerns based on drug involvement and falsification of her SF 86 are mitigated. Clearance is granted.

09/12/2005

Applicant is a program director for a defense contractor. He was a government employee working in a military laboratory, research, and engineering organization for over 37 years. Applicant was the second ranking civilian in the organization when he was removed from the senior executive service and federal service for violating the rules for using religious compensatory time, and restored annual leave. Applicant has met his heavy burden, and mitigated the security concerns for his personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

09/12/2005

Applicant has mitigated security concerns over his criminal conduct which began when he was arrested at 19 in 1984 and continued unbroken for five years until 1989; however, after he married in 1996 and began work for a defense contractor, he found his life's purpose and began his efforts at rehabilitation. While he had two more arrests in 1998, his subsequent record has been unblemished. While in his twenties he was sentenced to serve more than one year of confinement, in fact, each time he served substantially less than one year. Thus, the Smith provision as amended in 2004 (10 U.S.C. Section 986) no longer disqualifies him as he was never incarcerated for more than one year. As he has led a responsible and productive life for a significant period after release from confinement, clearance is granted.

09/12/2005

Applicant is precluded by 10 U.S.C. § 986 from holding a clearance because he served 17 months in jail after being convicted of a drug trafficking charge and subsequently violating the terms of his probation. Applicant also has significant financial problems and failed to mitigate the resulting security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations). Clearance is denied.

09/12/2005

Applicant demonstrated that his family members living in Taiwan were not agents of a foreign government or so situated as to provide a point of influence on Applicant, mitigating any foreign influence concerns. Clearance granted.

09/09/2005

2004 amendment to 10 U.S.C. 986 must be applied to all pending security clearance cases that fall within its scope. The Administrative Judge had no legal authority to make any waiver recommendation, favorable or unfavorable, in the absence of standards and procedures promulgated in accordance with the 2004 amendment to 10 U.S.C. 986. There is no authority under the Directive for the Board to stay a Judge's decision. Nothing in 10 U.S.C. 986 grants the Board such authority. Furthermore, Applicant is not entitled to receive relief predicated on speculation abut how he might be affected by standards and procedures that have not yet been promulgated. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/09/2005

Ex Post Facto clause of U.S. Constitution does not preclude the application of 10 U.S.C. 986 in DOHA proceedings. 2004 amendment to 10 U.S.C. 986 must be applied to all pending security clearance cases that fall within its scope. The application and effect of 10 U.S.C. 986 is not avoided by the applicability of Criminal Conduct mitigating conditions to the facts and circumstances of an applicant's case. Adverse decision affirmed.

09/09/2005

10 U.S.C. 986 was amended in 2004. That amendment is applicable to all pending cases that fall within its scope. Because the 2004 amendment reduces the coverage of 10 U.S.C. 986 in cases involving criminal convictions, a question arises whether Applicant's convictions fall under the amended version of 10 U.S.C. 986. A remand is warranted to allow the parties the opportunity to present evidence relevant to whether Applicant's convictions fall under the amended version of 10 U.S.C. 986. Case remanded with instructions.

09/07/2005

Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge erred by concluding the facts and circumstances of Applicant's ties and contacts with immediate family members in Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia raised security concerns under Guideline B, and concluding that Applicant had not successfully extenuated or mitigated those security concerns. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/31/2005

Applicant incurred significant debt, far in excess of her income. She has been unable to repay this debt as she lacks the financial resources to comply with a repayment plan. Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from her financial difficulties. Clearance is denied.

08/31/2005

Applicant's mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens of the People's Republic of China (PRC). His mother-in-law is a permanent U.S. resident and has resided with Applicant for 13 years. She receives no income or benefits from the PRC. His father-in-law, a retired accountant, lives in a small government-owned house in the PRC and receives government medical care. Applicant visited the PRC once to help his father-in-law move into his house, and he sends him about $1,000.00 per year. His contact with his father-in-law since 1998 has been limited to financial assistance and occasional exchange of pleasantries by telephone. The security concern based on foreign influence is mitigated. Clearance is granted.

08/31/2005

Applicant has worked for a defense contractor for over 25 years as a roofer, floor installer, estimator, and scheduler for maintenance of a family housing area on a military installation. Applicant was charged with felony sexual abuse of his stepdaughter, which occurred on numerous occasions in 2002. He acknowledged his conduct, expressed remorse, pled guilty, and completed all the evaluations, counseling, and probation requirements to date. He is working on, but has not completed, the three-year probation period and the court-ordered sex offender's treatment program. Absent clear evidence of successful rehabilitation, Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his criminal conduct and sexual behavior. Clearance is denied.

08/31/2005

08/31/2005

Applicant was born in the Republic of Vietnam, now the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. He left Vietnam in 1980 and became a U.S. citizen in 1988. Applicant successfully mitigated the foreign influence security concerns raised because his mother, mother-in-law, and eight siblings are citizens and residents of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Clearance is granted.

08/31/2005

Applicant works for a defense contractor as a painter and sandblaster in a shipyard. When Applicant was about 18 or 19 years old, she experimented with marijuana, but has not used it since. When she was 24 years old, she wrongfully purchased alcohol for minors, resulting in a conviction. Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from this conduct because the offenses were minor and have not recurred. Applicant wrongfully denied using marijuana on her security clearance application in 2002. Since then, she has matured. She has held a position of responsibility for over three years. She recognizes the importance of being completely candid in matters regarding security clearances and is unlikely to commit further misconduct. Clearance is granted.

08/31/2005

Between 1970 and February 2001, Applicant frequently used marijuana, while holding various security clearances. Between 1988 and June 2003, Applicant failed to disclose her purchase and use of illegal drugs when she completed six security clearance questionnaires, during three interviews, and in one sworn statement. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from her illegal drug use, falsifications, personal conduct, and criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

08/31/2005

Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. The Judge's findings of fact about Applicant's financial difficulties reflect a reasonable, plausible interpretation of the record evidence as a whole. The hardship that an unfavorable decision might have on an applicant does not mitigate the security concerns raised by an applicant's conduct and circumstances. Applicant's speculation about the Judge and Department Counsel is lacking in substance and does not rebut or overcome the presumption that agency officials carry out their duties in good faith. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/31/2005

Security concerns arose during renewal of Applicant's security clearance when it was discovered he owed over $26,000.00 to various creditors. Additionally, Applicant falsified his security clearance application by deliberately failing to list his delinquent debts. Applicant has failed to mitigate both concerns. Clearance is denied.

08/31/2005

Applicant was involved in multiple offenses involving use of drugs and alcohol between 1991 and 2001 that resulted in arrests and prosecutions and confinement for over five years. Applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment in 1992 but the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation. He violated his probation when he tested positive for cocaine in 1994 and the sentence was re-instated. After release in 2001 Applicant again used drugs in violation of probation. Applicant meets the current test under 10 U.S.C. § 986 since he served more than one year of confinement. No mitigating conditions are applicable. As I find against Applicant on other grounds, a recommendation as to waiver of § 986 is inappropriate. Clearance is denied.

08/31/2005

Applicant's financial problems continue to raise security concerns over his failure to resolve four debts totaling approximately $21,000. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from a debt of such magnitude. Clearance is denied.

08/31/2005

Applicant was arrested for or charged with criminal conduct six times between 1983 and 1999. Also, he deliberately omitted information about his criminal conduct when he completed a security clearance application (SF 86) and when he was interviewed by a Defense Security Service (DSS) special agent. He has failed to mitigate security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline J (criminal conduct). Clearance is denied.

08/31/2005

In 2002, Applicant sought professional help for his then excessive alcohol consumption. He successfully completed an intensive outpatient course of treatment and now consumes alcohol only in moderation. He has not been intoxicated since late 2002, and there are no adverse alcohol-related incidents in his background. He has mitigated the security concerns about alcohol consumption addressed under Guideline G. Clearance is granted.

08/31/2005

Because Applicant did not deliberately omit material information from the his security clearance application (SCA) in August 2001, I find in his favor under the personal conduct guideline. Applicant's three drug offenses in the 1980s establish a pattern of criminal conduct that has not been mitigated. His lengthy 10-year sentence and eight year probation term for the December 1989 cocaine sales conviction indicates the extent of Applicant's involvement in the selling of drugs. In addition, under 10 U.S.C. 986, the Department of Defense is prohibited from granting Applicant a security clearance based on his actual incarceration for eight years of his 10 years sentence. While the Secretary of Defense may waive the statutory prohibition in meritorious cases, a waiver is not recommended. Clearance is denied.

08/31/2005

Applicant accrued debts during a troubled relationship during the 1995 to 1999 time period that she became responsible for discharging as a single parent following the severance of her relationship with her child's father. Unable to pay off her old debts with her limited resources, she successfully petitioned for Chapter 7 relief in 2004. She is current with her debts and mitigates security concerns associated with her delinquent debts. Applicant successfully refutes allegations of falsification of her public trust position application (SF-85P). Clearance is granted.

08/31/2005

Applicant was arrested for family violence-assault in 1997. He had been drinking prior to the incident and continues to drink two to three beers a day. Applicant mitigated the criminal conduct and alcohol consumption security concerns raised by his conduct. He failed to mitigate personnel conduct security concerns raised by his dismissal from a court-ordered substance abuse program because of his unexcused absences and his deliberate falsification of his security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

08/30/2005

Department Counsel does not have to prove that an applicant has committed a security violation before the applicant's access to classified information can be denied or revoked. Administrative Judge erred by reaching a favorable conclusion about Applicant's security record in the absence of any evidence about Applicant's security record. Department Counsel is not required to present evidence showing that a particular foreign country is seeking to take advantage of a particular security vulnerability. There is no presumption in favor of granting a security clearance. Once Department Counsel presented record evidence that raised security concerns under Guideline B, the Judge could not make a favorable security clearance decision unless the Judge articulate a rational basis, supported by record evidence, for concluding Applicant had rebutted, extenuated, or mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline B. Favorable decision reversed.

08/30/2005

Administrative Judge's erroneous finding of fact about the amount of alcohol Applicant drinks is harmless given the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case. The Judge's application of Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions 2 and 3 is sustainable given the facts and circumstances of this case. Absent a showing that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, the Board will not disturb the Judge's findings of fact. The Board need not agree with all of the Judge's findings and conclusions in order to conclude that the record evidence permitted the Judge to find that the bulk of Applicant's security significant conduct had stopped by early 1999 and Applicant's omissions in 2002 were not deliberate falsifications. Favorable decision affirmed.

08/29/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns arising from her failure to resolve delinquent debts by paying the majority of her debts. She has a good-faith plan to resolve the two remaining unpaid debts. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from her debts. Clearance is granted.

08/29/2005

Applicant was born in Australia, and worked in support of the joint U.S. and Australian intelligence effort for over 30 years. He held a high-level security clearance recognized by the U.S., and was granted access to classified U.S. intelligence materials. Applicant immigrated to the U.S. in 1992, and became a U.S. citizen in 2002. Applicant's mother, daughter, and two associates are citizens and residents of Australia. Applicant has property holdings in Australia, but they are insufficient to make him vulnerable to foreign influence. Applicant exercised dual citizenship for a time, but later surrendered his passport and renounced his Australian citizenship. Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from possible foreign influence and foreign preference. Clearance is granted.

08/29/2005

Board need not decide whether there is merit to Applicant's claims of error concerning the Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions under Guideline F. The Judge's unfavorable decision is not based solely on the Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's history of financial difficulties. The Judge's unchallenged findings and conclusions about Applicant's falsification of a security clearance application are sufficient to support his unfavorable decision, independent of his findings and conclusions under Guideline F. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/29/2005

Applicant's financial problems continue to raise security concerns over his failure to resolve $45,000 in debt to numerous creditors and over his sexual behavior and criminal conduct. In 2000 he was arrested for solicitation to commit prostitution which was null prosed, but he continued to engage in the conduct and to solicit relationships with prostitutes from April 2000 to 2001 in two states. Though he promised in 2003 to begin a good-faith effort to resolve his debts, he failed to do so even though he has a stable job since April 2001. Also, he failed to seek financial counseling nor did he file for bankruptcy to resolve his dated debts until May 2005. Clearance is denied.

08/29/2005

Applicant has six unpaid debts totaling approximately $14,000. He has entered into an agreement with a debt settlement service to pay these debts. Applicant mitigated security concerns arising from his failure to resolve delinquent debts. He has a good-faith method of resolving the remaining unpaid debts. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from his debts. Clearance is granted.

08/29/2005

Appellant is a computer systems network engineer for a defense contractor. He served in and retired from the United States Army Reserve. He also retired from the United States Civil Service. In 1984, he was convicted of bribery of a public official and served approximately 13 months in prison. The provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 986 apply. Applicant has no criminal incidents since he served his prison term. He has excellent performance ratings both with the U.S. Government and private contractors. His finances are in excellent condition and he has accumulated funds and has no delinquent debts. A waiver of the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 986 is recommended.

08/29/2005

Between December 1997 and January 2002, Applicant was arrested four times. All charges were dismissed. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from the criminal conduct. Applicant also owed approximately $31,000 to eight creditors. Two of the creditors are being repaid through a consumers credit counseling service. However, he has made no payment on the other six debts, which total in excess of $23,000. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from financial considerations. Clearance is denied.

08/26/2005

Applicant is 27 years old and has worked for a federal contractor since 2000. Applicant was a citizen of Hong Kong and obtained a British National passport in 1995. He became a United States citizen in 2003, but retained his British National passport. It expired in July 2005, and he still possesses it. Applicant's sister, brother and grandmother are citizens and residents of Hong Kong. His sister works for the government of Hong Kong. Applicant's father is a citizen of Hong Kong, but lives with Applicant in the United States. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guidelines C, foreign preference and Guideline B, foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

08/26/2005

Applicant was born in the Republic of China (Taiwan) in 1966. He became a United States citizen in 1996, and continues to reside in the United States. His father and siblings are citizens and residents of Taiwan. Security concerns arising from possible foreign influence are not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

08/26/2005

Applicant used marijuana from 1989-January 2004, a couple of days before he was interviewed by a DSS agent about his security clearance applications. Applicant deliberately failed to fully and accurately describe his illegal drug use on either of the security clearance applications he submitted. Clearance is denied.

08/26/2005

Applicant filed for bankruptcy protection on numerous occasions, presently has more than $25,000.00 in delinquent debt, has numerous alcohol-related incidents in his background, and failed to disclose most of this information in a security clearance application he submitted in February 2000. Clearance is denied.

08/26/2005

A federal tax lien was filed against Applicant and his wife in 2000. Applicant did not disclose the tax lien or any other delinquent debts on his security clearance application (SF 86) in 2002, despite having listed the lien and more than 20 other debts on a voluntary bankruptcy petition he filed about six weeks after filing his SF 86. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding Guideline E, personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

08/26/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns relating to failure to resolve delinquent debts and to report those delinquent debts on his application for security clearance (SF 86). Applicant admitted failing to report the debts in fear of jeopardizing his ability to obtain a clearance. Applicant mitigated failure to report criminal charges filed against him in two incidents in 1997, but failed to mitigate concerns over failure to report driver's license suspensions on an employer's form. Clearance is denied.

08/26/2005

Applicant became financially overextended due to misuse of consumer credit and poor financial decisions from 1997 to 2002. While she moved back in with her parents to reduce expenses and has begun repaying her delinquent debts, she still owes about $37,000 in old credit card debt with little prospect of settlement or satisfaction in the foreseeable future. Financial considerations concerns persist. Clearance is denied.

08/26/2005

Under the Directive, the Board does not re-try a security clearance case on appeal. Rather, the Board reviews an Administrative Judge's decision to determine whether an appealing party has raised an issue that demonstrates factual or legal error by the Judge. Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the record evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge's unchallenged findings of fact about Applicant's history of financial difficulties provide a rational basis for the Judge's unfavorable conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/26/2005

Applicant is a 44-year-old employee of a defense contractor. Applicant sexually and physically abused his five-year-old autistic daughter in the Fall of 2000. Applicant and his wife received marriage/family counseling after the incident, and Applicant obtained therapeutic treatment in 2002 for the inappropriate acts with his daughter. He has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his sexual behavior and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

08/26/2005

Applicant, a 47-year-old senior staff engineer, has been arrested and charged with several misdemeanor criminal offenses and one criminal felony offense, all stemming from his divorce. The security concerns raised by his criminal conduct have been mitigated by the passage of time and his successful rehabilitation. Clearance is granted.

08/26/2005

Applicant is 49 years old and a supervisor who has been employed with the same company since 1988. Applicant was married from 1996 to 1998 and incurred some marital debts. Applicant has a 1993 unpaid state tax lien, five years of unpaid federal taxes, and numerous delinquent debts. Applicant failed to provide any mitigation for why he has not paid his debts. Applicant failed to list his tax lien and overdue debts on his security clearance application. Applicant failed to provide any mitigation as to why he lied on his security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

08/26/2005

Applicant is 27 years old and works for a federal contractor. Applicant was arrested, charged and/or convicted of numerous criminal offenses from January 1995 through April 2000. Some of the offenses involved the selling of drugs, others were obstructing a police officer, and one was for strong armed robbery. Applicant's criminal history is extensive, as is his drug history. Applicant deliberately omitted his criminal history, drug history and other requested information on his security clearance application. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding his criminal conduct, personal conduct and drug involvement. Clearance is denied.

08/25/2005

There is sufficient record evidence to support the Administrative Judge's findings of fact about Applicant's history of drug use. There is sufficient record evidence to support the Judge's findings of falsification. The Judge's decision sets forth rational and legally permissible reasons for her adverse conclusions about Applicant's alcohol consumption. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/25/2005

Apart from some minor errors that are harmless, the Administrative Judge's findings of fact about Applicant's history of financial difficulties are sustainable. The evidence of Applicant's overall history of financial difficulties provides a rational basis for the Judge's unfavorable conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/25/2005

The errors identified by Applicant concerning the Administrative Judge's findings of fact about Applicant's history of marijuana use are harmless in nature. The record evidence supports the Judge's finding that Applicant used marijuana while he had a security clearance, despite knowing such drug use was in violation of DoD policy. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/24/2005

Department Counsel cannot ask the Board to reverse an Administrative Judge's decision based on allegations of misconduct raised for the first time on appeal. The mere presence or absence on an Adjudicative Guidelines disqualifying condition or mitigating condition is not solely dispositive of a case. Although a Judge's credibility determination is entitled to deference on appeal, the Judge's credibility determination in this case is not sustainable. The record evidence as a whole does not support the Judge's finding that Applicant gave a reasonable explanation for omitting information about his drug use. Favorable decision reversed.

08/23/2005

The Applicant's half-brother, aunt and two uncles are citizens of and reside in Hong Kong. Another aunt is a citizen of and resides in the People's Republic of China. His elderly parents live with the Applicant in the U.S. The Applicant's foreign relatives are not connected to any foreign government, and are not subject to coercion. His mother-in-law is a U.S. citizen. The Applicant co-owns real estate in Hong Kong worth about $150,000. He is also co-signer of his father's $75,000 bank account in Hong Kong. These monetary figures, however, pale in comparison to his net worth of about $1,700,000 in the U.S. The Applicant is also a trustee for a Hong Kong charity that, in part, benefits an American university. The charity has no connection to any government, and the Applicant has no monetary interest in this charity. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

08/23/2005

Security concerns persist over Applicant's criminal conduct, drug abuse, and personal conduct over his 2000 arrest and conviction for attempted preparation of drugs for sale. He misrepresented the length of time he had sold drugs to his probation officer. Further, while he stopped using drugs in 1998, he continued his drug involvement by selling drugs until he was arrested in 2000. Overall, he failed to demonstrate clear evidence of successful rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.

08/23/2005

Applicant is unable to successfully mitigate the security concern stemming from his history of criminal conduct. He is also ineligible for access to classified information under 10 U.S.C. § 986 due to a 1962 conviction for voluntary manslaughter resulting in his serving approximately six years of confinement. In addition, Applicant deliberately falsified his security-clearance application by omitting his 1999 conviction for battery in response to a question requiring that specific information. Clearance is denied.

08/22/2005

Applicant is 34 years old and has been employed as a software engineer by a defense contractor since January 2001. In 2000, Applicant married a citizen of the Republic of China (Taiwan) while she was in the United States studying law, and the couple visited Taiwan in 2001. Although she is currently an applicant for full United States citizenship, her parents and three brothers remain in, and are citizens of, Taiwan. Additionally, from 2001-2004, Applicant's wife sent her parents some of her earnings to satisfy a portion of the loan secured to finance her American education. Because Applicant presented minimal evidence regarding his wife and scant information regarding his in-laws, he has failed to meet his burden in mitigating the security concerns raised by his foreign wife and relatives. Clearance is denied.

08/22/2005

Applicant, a 41-year-old web designer, had three alcohol related offenses between 1995 and 2001. Applicant continued his same drinking patterns after his first two arrests. He continued to drink after his third arrest, but less often and in lower quantities. Applicant recently stopped drinking. Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising under Guideline G. Clearance is denied.

08/22/2005

Applicant is 49 years old and has been employed by a defense contractor as an aircraft mechanic since March 2003. Applicant has been married since 1999, and resides with his wife in Japan. His wife is a citizen of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and has held a U.S. Resident Alien card since February 1, 2002. Applicant's wife's parents, her sister and her sister's husband are all citizens and residents of the PRC. Applicant and his wife maintain regular contact with her family members and they have traveled to the PRC to visit them five times since 1998. Applicant's wife also provides regular financial assistance to her parents. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline B pertaining to foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

08/22/2005

Applicant is a 25-year-old employee of a government contractor working as a personnel security specialist at a non-defense agency who failed to report on her security clearance application (SF 86) her discharge from a previous employment in 2001 for unsatisfactory performance (Question 20),and that she was 90 days delinquent on six different debts totaling approximately $2,500.00 (Question 39). Applicant admitted that the first omission was deliberate in an effort to protect her security clearance and avoid embarrassment. Clearance is denied.

08/22/2005

Applicant is a mechanic for a defense contractor. He served ten years on active military duty and had a security clearance at the time. After leaving active duty, he incurred delinquent debts for a mortgage on rental property he owned, for his apartment rent, for a telephone bill, and for a credit card bill. He paid his back due rent, his telephone debt, and credit card debts. He is now current on his mortgage payments for his rental property. On his security clearance application, Applicant answered "NO" to a question concerning judgments against him. He had a judgment against him, but he was paying that judgment monthly and thought "no" was the appropriate answer. Applicant has mitigated security concerns based on financial considerations and personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

08/22/2005

Applicant, a 51-year-old systems engineer, has been drinking for more than thirty years and to excess for more than ten years. Despite at least two inpatient admissions and outpatient treatment for alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, he continues to drink alcohol on a regular basis and to excess. Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising under Guideline G. Clearance is denied.

08/22/2005

In 1988, Applicant was charged with violating a state controlled substances act by selling a relatively small amount marijuana. He was sentenced to four years incarceration that was then converted to four years probation. There is no evidence he has committed any criminal offense since that time. Clearance is granted.

08/19/2005

If an applicant admits an SOR allegation, then such an admission provides an Administrative Judge with a legally sufficient basis to find that the applicant engaged in the conduct covered by the applicant's admission. When faced with an applicant's admission or denial of an SOR paragraph that is followed by an explanation that is inconsistent with the applicant's admission or denial, the Judge cannot characterize the inconsistent answer one way or the other without an explanation. A Judge's disbelief of an applicant's denial, standing alone, is not sufficient to support a finding that the applicant engaged in the conduct being denied. Case remanded with instructions.

08/18/2005

Given the state of the record below, the Board is unable to determine whether the Administrative Judge admitted Government Exhibit 6 into evidence. Furthermore, there is no copy of Government Exhibit 6 in the case file. Because of the state of the record below, the Board is unable to address Applicant's appeal argument concerning Government Exhibit 6. Because the case is being remanded, the Board notes -- as a matter of judicial economy -- that throughout the record , the decision below, and the Applicant's appeal brief, there is evidence of uncertainty, ambiguity, or confusion due to multiple methods of enumerating Applicant's Exhibits. Case remanded with instructions.

08/18/2005

Security clearance adjudications are not limited to consideration of an applicant's job performance or conduct during work hours. Applicant fails to articulate any cogent reason why his work history demonstrates the Administrative Judge's decision is erroneous. The Judge's findings of fact about Applicant's history of financial difficulties provide a rational basis for the Judge to reach unfavorable conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/17/2005

Applicant, a 35-year-old employee of a defense contractor and former sergeant, was discharged under other than honorable conditions in 2001 for misuse of a government credit card, and making false official statements, and forgery to cover up the original offense. While he omitted several details of the offenses on his SF 86, the omissions were minor and he made a full effort to report them on the form, in his interview, and at the hearing. He has since taken private employment with two companies holding a security clearance. His first work concerned rebuilding the Pentagon after 9/11. He has successfully rehabilitated himself, is financially secure, and cares for two daughters as a single father. The security concerns have been mitigated. Clearance is granted.

08/17/2005

Applicant is a 41-year-old employee of a federal contractor. He has held a security clearance since 1982. Applicant's delinquent debts total $19,107. Of that amount, $16,182 represents unpaid child support payments for his daughter who is now 20 years old. Applicant has been seeking resolution of other delinquent debts for the past couple of years. Applicant has failed to successfully mitigate the security concern stemming from his history of not meeting financial obligations. In addition, he has failed to mitigate the security concern based on his falsification of his security clearance application when he deliberately omitted or concealed he had delinquent debts over 180 days old. Clearance is denied.

08/17/2005

Applicant is a 31-year-old computer specialist for a federal contractor. In the past, during his military service he held a security clearance. Applicant is married to a Ukrainian citizen who lives in the United States with Applicant. Applicant's wife's family members are residents and citizens of the Ukraine. She maintains close personal communications with them on a regular basis and visits them annually. Applicant and his wife anticipate visiting her family in the Ukraine in the fall. Applicant had two criminal allegations against him dated 1996 and 2001. Applicant mitigated the criminal conduct that raised security concerns, but failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

08/17/2005

Applicant has mitigated security concerns about his alcohol-related arrests in college and provided evidence that he has reformed his conduct. He now curtails his drinking and is changing his lifestyle. He performs well on the job without any evidence of recurrence of an alcohol problem. Clearance is granted.

08/17/2005

Applicant is a 48-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He drove a vehicle while intoxicated in March 1983, was convicted of the offense and sentenced to three days' confinement. Between about January and March 1982, Applicant used physical force to make a 6-year-old girl under his care perform oral sodomy on him on five to seven occasions. He pled guilty to felony sexual abuse, was sentenced to five year's confinement, and served three years in jail. Since then, Applicant obtained treatment, abstained from alcohol, avoided criminal conduct, and built a successful career. Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his criminal conduct. But, absent a waiver, 10 U.S.C. § 986 precludes the Department of Defense from granting Applicant a security clearance where he served more than one year in confinement. Clearance is denied.

08/17/2005

Applicant has failed to mitigate the Guideline E (personal conduct), Guideline F (financial considerations), and Guideline J (criminal conduct) security concerns stemming from his excessive delinquent debt, on-the-job drug and alcohol use, and multiple deliberate false statements to the government, which also violate federal law. Clearance is denied.

08/17/2005

Falsification of a security clearance application has security significance that is independent of the security significance of the facts and circumstances that an applicant tries to conceal from the federal government. Applicant has not shown that it was arbitrary or capricious for the Administrative Judge to decide that Applicant failed to mitigate his falsification of the security clearance application. Falsification raises serious questions about an applicant's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness, and provides a rational basis for an unfavorable security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/17/2005

Applicant is unable to successfully mitigate the security concern stemming from his long-term history of criminal conduct. In addition, he is ineligible for access to classified information under 10 U.S.C. § 986 due to a criminal conviction resulting in his serving approximately 13 months of confinement. Clearance is denied.

08/15/2005

Applicant failed to file his federal and state income tax returns for 2002 and 2003 until May 2005. Despite having income of more than $90,000 a year, he still owes more than $5,000 in taxes. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his failure to timely resolve his debts. Clearance is denied.

08/15/2005

Applicant, a naturalized citizen of the United States since 1999, has lived, studied, worked, and raised a family in the U.S. continuously since 1981. He has limited to no contact with his father, sister, and two brothers who are citizens and residents of the Republic of China (Taiwan). He has mitigated the foreign influence security concern alleged in the Statement of Reasons. Clearance is granted.

08/15/2005

Applicant received a bad conduct discharge from the U.S. Navy, has been arrested four times for driving while under the influence of alcohol and twice for other serious traffic offenses, and has allowed several debts to become severely delinquent, including federal income taxes. He has failed to mitigate the security concerns that exist in this case. Clearance is denied.

08/15/2005

Applicant was terminated from a previous employment position due to poor job performance associated with unauthorized use of his company computer. He did not disclose the reason for his termination on his security clearance application (SF 86), and failed to mitigate the resulting security concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

08/15/2005

The Government established a prima facie case under Guideline B based on the fact applicant's father is a British citizen residing in Hong Kong. The applicant has, however, presented convincing evidence that his father does not present a security risk. I therefore conclude that applicant has rebutted the Government's prima facie case. Clearance is granted.

08/15/2005

While Applicant's past financial problems raised security concerns because of his delay in resolving his debts to three creditors, he has now demonstrated he has made a good-faith effort to resolve all his debts and has reformed his financial practices. In addition, Applicant has a stable job where he is highly regarded. He has matured substantially and demonstrated he has now reformed his financial practices. Clearance is granted.

08/15/2005

Applicant has a history of financial difficulties caused by poor judgment and unsound personal financial management. Despite two Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidations and recent remedial efforts to pay or otherwise resolve over $37,000 in delinquent debts consisting mainly of unpaid tax liens, he is still financially overextended and is likely to continue experiencing financial problems. Applicant has failed to mitigate the resulting security concerns as addressed under Guideline F (financial considerations). Clearance is denied.

08/15/2005

Applicant is a radiological control monitor for a defense contractor. She and a former husband had their debts discharged in bankruptcy in 1995. By 2001 with a new husband, Applicant had accumulated more delinquent debts that she has not satisfied or resolved with creditors. Her 2002 electronically submitted security clearance application did not list the bankruptcy nor any debts past due over 180 days and 90 days. Applicant did answer "yes" on the written form to the questions concerning bankruptcy and 180 days and 90 days past due debts. Applicant's information was not correctly transferred to the electronic form. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for financial considerations but she did not deliberately conceal or provide false relevant and material facts on her application. Clearance is denied.

08/10/2005

Applicant's husband is a citizen of Iran living in the United States. His parents reside half of each year in the United States and the other half of the year in Iran. Clearance is denied.

08/09/2005

This 48-year-old Engineering Manager was born in Lebanon in 1956, came to the United States in 1983, attended college, and became a U.S. citizen in 1984. His wife and children are all U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. He has some relatives still residing in Lebanon. He has worked in the defense industry for most of his career and has held a DoD security clearance since 1988, without any reported problems. He has a long history of service to the U.S. and is highly praised by his employer and colleagues for making valuable contributions to U.S. security interests. In context, the risk caused by relatives in Lebanon is minimal and acceptable. He credibly avers he would report any improper contacts. Mitigation has been established. Clearance is granted.

08/09/2005

Applicant's case involved the adjudication of his security eligibility in light of 10 U.S.C. 986. Just before the Administrative Judge issued his decision, Congress amended that statute. As a matter of fairness to the parties under the Directive, the Board hereby remands the case to the Judge to allow the parties an opportunity -- consistent with basic principles of due process -- to present their views on the effect of the new law on Applicant's case. Case remanded with instructions.

08/09/2005

Applicant's case involved the adjudication of his security eligibility in light of 10 U.S.C. 986. While this case was pending appeal, Congress amended that statute. As a matter of fairness to the parties under the Directive, the Board hereby remands the case to the Administrative Judge to allow the parties an opportunity -- consistent with basic principles of due process -- to present their views on the effect of the new law on Applicant's case. Case remanded with instructions.

08/09/2005

Applicant's case involved the adjudication of his security eligibility in light of 10 U.S.C. 986. While this case was pending on appeal, Congress amended that statute. As a matter of fairness to the parties under the Directive, the Board hereby remands the case to the Administrative Judge to allow the parties an opportunity -- consistent with basic principles of due process -- to present their views on the effect of the new law on Applicant's case. Case remanded with instructions.

08/08/2005

Applicant's (1) intentional falsifications of material facts on two security questionnaires and in a signed, sworn statement he gave to the Defense Investigative Service (DIS), and (2) intention to continue using marijuana, preclude a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

08/08/2005

Department Counsel has not shown that the Administrative Judge acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner when he decided to not reopen the record on remand. Board does not issue advisory opinions. Because the Judge's decision to not reopen the record on remand has not been shown to be arbitrary or capricious, the Board does not have to reach any conclusion as to the evidentiary sufficiency of an NSA affidavit that was offered by Department Counsel on remand. The Federal Rules of Evidence is only a guide in DOHA proceedings. The Judge properly concluded three NSA documents were admissible under Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.20, but the Judge erred by limiting their admissibility on grounds that went beyond those justified under a strict application of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine arose in criminal law cases and is not appropriate for application in DOHA proceedings. Favorable decision remanded with instructions.

08/05/2005

While Applicant's past financial problems raised security concerns because of his delay in resolving his debts, he has now demonstrated he has made a good-faith effort to resolve all his debts and has reformed his financial practices. In addition, Applicant has a stable job where he is highly regarded. Though security concerns over his past personal conduct are serious, he has matured substantially and demonstrated he has now reformed his character and conduct. Clearance is granted.

08/05/2005

Applicant used marijuana and cocaine while holding a security clearance and employed as a plant protection officer for a defense contractor. Applicant has not used any illegal drug since about August 2000, and intends to remain drug-free, thereby mitigating the drug involvement concerns, but he misrepresented the extent of his illicit substance involvement on his November 1999 security clearance application and in a July 2000 signed, sworn statement provided to a government investigator. Clearance is denied.

08/05/2005

Applicant is 42 years old, married with two daughters, has worked for the same federal contractor since 1988, and held a security clearance since 1989. In 1994 Applicant became seriously ill and almost died. Some of his fingers on both hands and both his feet were amputated. In 1995 he and his family were in a car accident. His mother died and his family sustained serious injuries. Applicant received social security disability benefits. He believed he was entitled to these benefits, but did not know for how long. Applicant was overpaid and currently has a payment plan and financial resources to repay this debt. Applicant did not list this debt on his security application because he believed the question pertained to consumer debt. Applicant has mitigated the financial and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is granted.

08/05/2005

Applicant's financial problems invoke security concerns because of his failure to resolve his debts to seven creditors. While in July 2003 he promised to begin a good-faith effort to resolve his debts, he failed to do so even though he has a stable job. Although Applicant is hardworking, he failed to seek financial counseling or bankruptcy to resolve his dated debts. On the other hand, the government failed to establish security concerns over his criminal conduct or personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

08/05/2005

Applicant retired from active military service and started working for a defense contractor. His salary was lowered after two years because his employer lost a contract. Applicant started to accumulate delinquent debts. Applicant regained a salary equivalent to his former salary. Even though he had sufficient financial resources each month to pay some creditors, he did not pay any creditors, but filed a petition in bankruptcy. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for financial considerations. Clearance is denied.

08/05/2005

Security concerns were raised regarding a 62-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen-Applicant, born in Taiwan, whose three retired brothers, three sisters, and a sister-in-law-remain citizens and residents of Taiwan. Applicant has resided in the U.S. for 35 years. Applicant married his wife, a naturalized U.S. citizen, in 1975 in the U.S. Applicant's two children were born and reside in the United States. The security concerns are mitigated by the evidence developed herein. Clearance is granted.

08/05/2005

Applicant is a 44-year-old male who has worked for a defense contractor since January1987. A self-described social drinker, his weekend drinking led to his arriving at work in 1997 smelling of alcohol and possessing a negligible, but existent, residual blood alcohol level, and to a 2003 charge of Driving Under the Influence with a .239 blood alcohol level. Both incidents led to employer-directed counseling and sanctions. In between the incidents, in 2001, Applicant answered "no" to the question on his security clearance application as to whether his use of alcohol had resulted in any alcohol-related treatment or counseling in the past seven years. Applicant has failed to mitigate security concerns. Clearance is denied.

08/05/2005

Applicant has a long history of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and criminal conduct. He also had a history of financial difficulties. Applicant deliberately omitted from his security clearance application information about his criminal conduct, alcohol/drug arrests, drug history, and financial condition. Applicant failed to mitigate drug involvement, criminal conduct, alcohol consumption, personal conduct, and financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied.

08/05/2005

Applicant drank alcohol to excess from 1981 to 2001. He was convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1994 and sentenced. He was convicted of having an open container of alcohol in 1998 and sentenced. He was convicted of driving while intoxicated in 2000 and sentenced. He completed four alcohol treatment programs and his prognosis for sobriety is poor. Applicant did not include all his alcohol-related convictions and treatments on his security clearance application. However, Applicant has difficulty reading and comprehending. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for alcohol consumption, but has mitigated security concerns for personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

08/05/2005

For the purposes of Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), the formal disposition of a driving under the influence charge against Applicant is irrelevant to the evidence that the underlying incident involved alcohol abuse. Board does not have to agree with the Administrative Judge to conclude Applicant has not demonstrated the Judge's conclusions are arbitrary or capricious. The particular reason that a party has for offering certain evidence does not restrict the Judge's authority to consider that evidence in light of the record as a whole and draw reasonable inferences about it. The Judge's erroneous application of Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Condition 5 is harmless in this case. Applicant has not shown that the Judge erred by concluding he had not presented sufficient evidence of mitigation. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/05/2005

Applicant, a native of the People's Republic of China (PRC), came to the U.S. for graduate study in 1995. In 1997, she married a fellow graduate student, a U.S. native. Since becoming a U.S. citizen in August 2001, she has traveled three times to the PRC, most recently in September 2004 when her grandfather was gravely ill. Applicant's mother is a PRC citizen and U.S. permanent resident who has resided in the U.S. since about 1999. While Applicant's brother and grandmother are PRC resident citizens, Applicant does not have such a close bond with them that she is likely to jeopardize U.S. interests. Clearance is granted.

08/05/2005

Applicant abused marijuana from age 16 (1996) to October or November 2003. Over a 16-month span in 1998/99, he was convicted twice of illegal possession of marijuana, of refusal to submit to chemical test after drunk driving, and of disorderly conduct (fighting). In April 2001, he pleaded nolo contendere to obstructing an officer in execution of duty. His substance abuse and related criminal conduct are mitigated by his abstinence from illegal drugs with no intent to use in the future and a favorable change in his drinking habits, but criminal conduct and personal conduct concerns persist where he deliberately omitted his marijuana use and criminal arrest record from his security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

08/05/2005

Between 1992 and 1995, Applicant stole an expensive test scanner from his employer. On at least 10 occasions during the same period while working for his employer's customer, Applicant pilfered computer discs and pens from the employees' desks of his employer's customer. Yet, in his sworn statement dated October 2003, Applicant deliberately furnished false information by claiming he did not steal the scanner. Applicant's continuing denial he falsified material information in his October 2003 sworn statement eliminates him from security clearance access under the personal conduct guideline. Clearance is denied.

08/05/2005

Applicant, born in Burma (renamed Myanmar by the country's military government) and granted political asylum in the U.S. in 1991 before he became a naturalized U.S. citizen, has immediate and extended family members who are citizens and residents of Burma, where they remain potentially vulnerable to pressure or coercion. Despite his demonstrated courage and loyalty to the U.S., his ties to his immediate and extended family members, which he cannot contact out of fear he could place them in danger with the Burmese government, create security risks that cannot be reconciled with Guideline B. Applicant is unable to mitigate foreign influence security concerns associated with his having family members who are both citizens and residents of Burma. Clearance is denied.

08/05/2005

Applicant assaulted his wife in 1986 and 2002, and was charged with assaulting a customer in 1997 at a bar at which he was working. He failed to mitigate criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

08/05/2005

Applicant has failed to mitigate the Guideline E (personal conduct), Guideline F (financial considerations), and Guideline J (criminal conduct) security concerns stemming from his excessive delinquent debt, and his deliberate false statements to the government, which also violate federal law. Clearance is denied.

08/04/2005

Applicant is a 34-year-old tradesman for a defense contractor. While in the Navy, he received alcohol-related Non-Judicial Punishment in 1993, and again in 2000/2001, for fraud and theft of Government property involving the submission of false invoices. As a result of the latter, he lost his Navy security clearance in 2001. He then deliberately omitted any mention of his loss of clearance on his February 2003 DoD security clearance application. Mitigation has not been demonstrated. Clearance is denied.

08/04/2005

The Applicant's debt situation arose primarily from his divorce, which concluded in 2001. Since that time, as his financial situation has improved, the Applicant has made efforts at paying off his overdue debt. His current financial situation is stable and he shows every indication that he will successfully resolve his remaining debt situation. Adverse inference is overcome. Clearance is granted.

08/04/2005

The record evidence does not support the Administrative Judge's application of Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions 2 and 3. The record evidence does not support the Judge's conclusion that Applicant had successfully mitigated the security concerns raised by his history of excessive drinking. Favorable decision reversed.

08/04/2005

Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. A decision by a Hearing Office Judge is not legally binding precedent that must be followed by that Judge's colleagues in other cases. Applicant has not shown that the Judge erred in her application of pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines in this case. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/04/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Considering the record below, the Board concludes Applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence for the Administrative Judge to consider in her case. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/03/2005

Applicant's two misdemeanor convictions fall under Guideline J even though he was not sentenced to any jail time. Applicant's sexual misconduct falls under Guideline D even though he is not required by state law to register as a sex offender. Applicant had the burden of presenting evidence to extenuate or mitigate his sexual misconduct. The Judge was not required to give Applicant the benefit of the doubt about a matter for which Applicant had the burden of proving. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/03/2005

Board does not have to agree with the Administrative Judge's weighing of the record evidence to conclude the Judge's challenged factual findings are sustainable. Board does not have to agree with the Judge to conclude it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to decide that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to warrant application of Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition 3. Favorable decision affirmed.

08/02/2005

This 58-year-old project coordinator has a history of financial irresponsibility beginning in the late 1980s and continuing to the present day. He received bankruptcy protection in 1990 (Chapter 13) and again in 1998 (Chapter 7), and he again owes massive delinquent debts on at least 41 separate accounts. Much of the debt load was incurred for serious medical reasons, but he has done very little to resolve his current debt load. He is only recently making any substantive efforts toward resolving his delinquent debts and demonstrating financial rehabilitation. No mitigation has been shown. Clearance is denied.

08/02/2005

The Board need not address the merits of claims that do not raise any material issue of fact or law. Considering the record as a whole, and giving due deference to the Administrative Judge's assessment of the credibility of Applicant's testimony, the Board concludes the Judge had a sufficient basis to find Applicant knowingly acted in violation of his former employer's policy when he accessed and downloaded pornographic images from the Internet. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude Applicant did not present evidence sufficient to mitigate his misconduct. Adverse decision affirmed.

08/01/2005

The date when Applicant was first granted a security clearance is not material or relevant to the Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's overall history of financial difficulties. The date when Applicant enlisted in the U.S. Navy is not material or relevant to the Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's overall history of financial difficulties. Considering the record as a whole, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude Applicant had not presented evidence sufficient to demonstrate mitigation of the security concerns raised by his history of financial difficulties. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/29/2005

Decisions by Hearing Office Administrative Judges are not legally binding precedent that must be followed in other cases. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Applicant has not shown that the Judge's application of the Adjudicative Guidelines was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The record evidence of Applicant's history of episodic alcohol abuse provides a sufficient basis for the Judge's adverse conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/29/2005

Applicant is a 46-year-old desktop technician who has intermittently worked for the same defense contractor since July 1998. Owing to periods of unemployment from July 2001 to July 2002, and from June 2003 through August of 2003, Applicant fell into arrears on his mortgage and three other debts. When he filed his Application for Security Clearance, he neglected to note that two of his debts were over 180 days delinquent. Applicant successfully explained how he incorrectly answered the question regarding delinquencies on his security clearance application and has mitigated concerns with regard to his debts. Clearance is granted.

07/29/2005

Although applicant has lived in the United States since 1981, he has numerous immediate family members who are citizens and/or residents of various foreign countries, including Afghanistan and Pakistan. Clearance is denied.

07/29/2005

The Applicant was involved in a domestic dispute in 1989 that turned violent and resulted in his arrest and conviction for felony counts of Assault and Malicious Mischief. The Applicant subsequently falsified a security clearance application regarding these acts. Adverse inference is not overcome. Clearance is denied.

07/29/2005

The record evidence supports the Administrative Judge's finding that Applicant had six alcohol-related incidents over a period of 15 years. Given the record evidence of Applicant's long history of episodic alcohol abuse (which included incidents of alcohol abuse after periods of sobriety), it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude that Applicant's alcohol abuse history had not been mitigated by the passage of time. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge had a rational basis for his expressed doubts as to whether Applicant could keep his continued drinking under control. Applicant's long history of episodic alcohol abuse provides a rational basis for the Judge's adverse conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/29/2005

Applicant, a 60-year-old employee of a defense cleaning services contractor, failed to pay federal and state income taxes for eight years. After being discharged in bankruptcy in 1997, Applicant incurred $4,200 in credit debit, which has not been paid. Applicant recently made arrangements to pay the credit debt and has started repaying the back taxes. Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from her financial difficulties. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Around the time he was first granted a security clearance in 1987, Applicant began using marijuana with varying frequency. He first disclosed his drug use in his most recent security clearance questionnaire (SF 86) in March 2003, and last used the drug after being interviewed by investigators in late 2003. He has failed to overcome the adverse security implications of 16 years of illegal drug involvement while holding a security clearance. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

In 1998, Applicant was arrested for distribution of marijuana and possession of a firearm, a felony. He pled guilty to and was convicted of possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor, and sentenced as a first offender. After completing all parts of his sentence, the charge was dismissed. Applicant admitted smoking marijuana from 1992 to 1999. On his security clearance application, Applicant answered "no" to the questions concern felony arrests, drug use and convictions, and firearms offenses. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns for his drug use, but has not mitigated the security concerns for the deliberate falsifications on his security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Department Counsel is not required to present evidence that proves an applicant poses a clear and present danger or imminent threat to national security. Department Counsel does not have the burden of disproving the applicability of an Adjudicative Guidelines mitigating condition. Rather, an applicant has the burden of proving the applicability of such a mitigating condition. Decisions by Hearing Office Judges are not legally binding precedent that must be followed by the Board. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge failed to articulate a rational basis for his application of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1 or his favorable conclusions under Guideline B. Favorable decision reversed.

07/28/2005

Board can cite and rely on its decisions in security clearance cases when those decisions support legal propositions and principles that are pertinent to the adjudication of an ADP trustworthiness case. Considering the record as a whole, there is sufficient evidence for the Administrative Judge to find that Applicant falsified a Public Trust Position Application by failing to disclose all of her criminal record. A review of the proceedings below persuades the Board that Applicant was on adequate notice of the allegations being made against her, and that Applicant was given a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing and to present evidence on her behalf. Nothing in the Directive or DoD Regulation 5200.2-R authorizes the Judge to make a favorable trustworthiness decision conditioned on further investigation of Applicant. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/28/2005

Applicant has been employed by a defense contractor for more than 15 years. She has delinquent credit card debts incurred in the early 1990s. She has not paid most of her overdue bills even though her present debts are current. Applicant relied on the running of the statue of limitation in her state to be in a position that her creditors cannot sue her for the debts. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns based on her indebtedness. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Applicant used marijuana in high school, and after many years of avoidance was involved in a possession incident while holding a security clearance, in which he was arrested on a single occasion in October 1999 and awarded deferred prosecution. Because of beneficiary's failure to provide any documentation of his compliance with deferred prosecution conditions associated with his 1999 marijuana possession arrest, it remains unclear whether he has met the deferral conditions that will enable him to satisfactorily complete his imposed 5-year probation. Without more documentation of successful compliance, Applicant may not be credited with successful mitigation of his recurrent marijuana use. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate allegations of personal conduct raised by his failure to report criminal and drug use and arrests on three questions on his security clearance application and the underlying criminal and drug offenses. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Applicant is 32 years old, a painter for a defense contractor, and married with three children. Applicant was financially unable to pay some of her debts in the 1990s because she frequently was a single mother with three young children for whom she had to care, was unemployed for two periods of time, when employed had minimum wage jobs, and most of her delinquent debts were for health care for her children or car loans she could not pay from her income alone. Applicant filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy and paid separately two delinquent debts. Applicant successfully mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Clearance is granted.

07/28/2005

Applicant with an otherwise meritorious professional record engaged in an act of public indecency with a park conservation officer in 2000 and was arrested and fined as a result of his actions. Initially concealing the encounters from his wife, family and friends out of personal embarrassment, he has since made a clean disclosure to his spouse and assures his family and friends know about his indiscretion. Overall, he mitigates security concerns arising out of the personal, criminal and sexual behavior aspects of his actions. However, Applicant does not mitigate security concerns associated with his concealing the material arrest/conviction in his SF-86 and failing to disclose it to the interviewing DSS agent for over two years, and only after being confronted with it. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Applicant had three alcohol-related driving incidents in the late 1980s and early 1990s. He had another alcohol-related driving incident in 2003. Applicant twice attended and completed alcohol abuse driving programs. After receiving notice of security concerns, Applicant voluntarily attended and completed an alcohol abuse program, but Applicant still consumes alcohol a few times a week. Applicant has has not mitigated security concerns about alcohol consumption. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Applicant has a history of delinquent debts he incurred between 1986 and 1993 that he discharged in bankruptcy in 1995 following a bitter divorce and ensuing layoff. He accrued additional judgments and debts, however, following his bankruptcy that he has not been able to address in any manifest way. The latest judgment/delinquent debt total exceeds $10,000.00 and still remains significant. While Applicant is to be encouraged to continue to explore ways to resolve his debts, he has made too little documented effort to date to resolve his debts to facilitate any safe predictable judgments at this time about his debt resolution prospects. Applicant fails to mitigate security concerns associated with his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Applicant is 61 years old, divorced with two children of his own, and works as an analyst for a defense contractor. Applicant has ten delinquent debts, and failed to disclose in Question 40 of the security clearance application three lawsuits in the 1990s in which he was a party. Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Applicant is 48 years old and has worked for a federal contractor since 2000. Applicant was discharged from the military in 1996, due to a force reduction, and was unemployed for a short time. During this time some of Applicant's debts became delinquent. Applicant entered college in 1996 and graduated in 2000. Applicant accumulated other debts during this time and has approximately $17,000 in delinquencies. Although Applicant believes one debt is a duplicate, he admits owing the debts and has stated because the debts are no longer listed on his credit report he does not intend to repay them. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding his financial considerations. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Applicant mitigated concerns of Foreign Influence created by presence of a mother and three sisters in Iran all of whom are citizens of Iran, by the facts and evidence produced. Applicant left Iran at age 15 for high school and university in London. He came to the U.S. and has held a security clearance with two companies for several years. He is totally integrated into the U.S. culture with a U.S. born wife, two children, and an important position in the defense scientific community where he is highly regarded for his abilities and adherence to security requirements. Clearance is granted.

07/28/2005

Applicant is a teleconference specialist for a defense contractor. When employed by a computer service company, Applicant received computer equipment for job training. Applicant did not return the equipment when his employment was terminated. Police seized the equipment from his house. He was charged with theft of property by unauthorized taking and appeared in court, but was informed by the judge to return to court with counsel. Applicant was indicted by grand jury but moved to another state and never returned to court. He pled guilty to the offense later. Applicant failed to list the felony charge on his security clearance application. Applicant denied to a DSS special agent any encounter with law enforcement or knowledge of the felony charges. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for personal and criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Applicant is a former active duty service member who has worked for a defense contractor as a communications systems installer for nine years. Applicant was either charged with or found guilty of minor criminal offenses on five occasions by military or civilian law enforcement. Most of the incidents involved alcohol. Applicant admitted to still consuming alcohol on occasion. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns based on his criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Applicant has a history of excessive drinking during his high school years and beyond (to at least June 2002) and five alcohol-related offenses over a period of time that stretches from August 1997 to December 2000. With no documented recurrence of abusive drinking since June 2002, Applicant mitigates the government's security concerns over his drinking excesses and alcohol-related offenses. However, Applicant's concealment of four of his alcohol-related offenses in his executed security clearance application is not mitigated under any of the pertinent mitigation guidelines covered by Guideline E and raises continuing security concerns about Applicant's judgment and reliability. Criminal implications of his omissions are mitigated under the separate mitigation conditions governed by Guideline J. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Applicant is 57 years old and has worked for his present employer, a federal contractor, since 1996. Applicant was arrested in 1985 and 1987 for alcohol related offenses and he has successfully mitigated those issues. Applicant was arrested on two occasions for shoplifting. Applicant failed to list his last shoplifting offense on his security clearance application and then made contradictory statements as to the reason. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding his criminal conduct and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

07/28/2005

Applicant is 53 years old and has been employed by defense contractors since 1987. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1969 to 1979, and held security clearances in 1970 and 1986. Applicant was arrested three times in the 1970s for alcohol related driving offenses. He successfully completed an alcohol recovery program offered by the Navy in 1977, and he discontinued drinking from 1979 to 1999. Applicant was convicted of two more alcohol driving offenses in 2001 and 2003, and he did not complete the alcohol treatment recommended for him in those cases. Applicant's driving privilege is presently revoked, and he admits he continues to consume alcohol in moderation on a regular basis. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding Guideline G, alcohol consumption. Clearance is denied.

07/27/2005

Applicant is 43 years old, married with two children from his current marriage and two children from a prior marriage. He pays child support for them. Applicant has five delinquent debts that he is trying to pay, but his income for four people is only $31,000 annually. He works a second job also. Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted.

07/27/2005

Applicant is a 43-year-old employee of a defense contractor who serves as a civilian trainer for a military combat vehicle system. Applicant served 22 years in the U.S. Army and successfully held a security clearance and positions of responsibility. He engaged in multiple instances of criminal conduct, including: drunk driving in February 1997; wrongful use of marijuana in June 2001; and drunk driving, speeding, and wrongful use and possession of marijuana in November 2001. Applicant was diagnosed as Alcohol Dependent. He successfully completed a two-year substance abuse treatment plan, and performed sensitive duties for three years without any recurrence of substance abuse issues. Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his criminal conduct, alcohol consumption, and drug involvement. Clearance is granted.

07/27/2005

Applicant is 39 years old. He is an aircraft technician in a managerial role for a defense contractor. His is divorced and has four children. Applicant has five alcohol-related arrests from 1985 to 2003, no alcohol evaluation, and he drank beer until the summer of 2004. He failed to disclose his history of arrests on his security clearance application. Applicant failed to mitigate his alcohol consumption, personal conduct, and criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

07/27/2005

Having decided to forego a hearing, Applicant is not entitled to have her case remanded to the Administrative Judge for a hearing simply because she regrets her decision to ask for a determination without a hearing. Nothing in the record below or the Judge's decision indicates or suggests Applicant was denied a fair adjudication of her case. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Apart from that presumption, a review of the decision below shows the Judge specifically took into account Applicant's explanation about her three security violations. The Judge was not compelled, as a matter of law, to conclude that Applicant's explanation was sufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by her security violations. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/27/2005

Applicant is 43 years old, married, and works on computers for a defense contractor. Applicant used marijuana from 1978 until 1986 regularly, both in the Navy and afterward. He abstained from 1986 to 1998, then he used it intermittently until 2000 at parties with his brother. Applicant disclosed a 1981 marijuana civilian citation on his security clearance application, but neglected to disclose his 1998 to 2000 intermittent use in answer to Question 27. Applicant mitigated the personal conduct, drug abuse, and criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is granted.

07/27/2005

Applicant is 68 years old, a retired businessman, who now drives his trucks for a defense contractor hauling classified and secure loads. Applicant failed to disclose a $256,000 judgment on his security clearance application, nor did he disclose his 1998 lawsuit with his wife against another businessman. Applicant has not paid the judgment, and refuses to do so. He is making payments on an Internal Revenue Service debt. Applicant has not successfully mitigated the financial considerations and personal conduct security clearance concerns. Clearance is denied.

07/27/2005

Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He was born in Hong Kong, moved to Canada in 1974, and came to the U.S. in 1985. He has worked for his current employer for more than 10 years. Applicant's father worked as a concessionaire on a U.S. military reservation from 1958 to 1993, but retired in the People's Republic of China (PRC). Applicant has only seen his father seven times in his life, and has only casual and infrequent contact. Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his father's residence in the PRC. Clearance is granted.

07/27/2005

An applicant is entitled to receive reasonable notice of the allegations being made against him so that the applicant can have a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations. However, a Statement of Reasons need not allege every piece of evidence that is relevant and material to evaluating an applicant's security eligibility. In this case, the Administrative Judge did not err by considering the record evidence linking Applicant's alcohol abuse to his depression. There is sufficient record evidence to sustain the Judge's conclusion that Applicant had not demonstrated that his depression was being sufficiently controlled by his medication to preclude a likely relapse of his alcohol abuse. Because Applicant has not demonstrated error below, he is not entitled to have his case remanded so that he can present additional evidence on his behalf. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/27/2005

Given the unique set of facts present in this case, and applying the whole person concept, applicant's significant ties to Canada do not pose an unacceptable security risk. Clearance is granted.

07/26/2005

The Applicant's improper use of his company computer to access pornography sites on the internet in 1999, in violation of his company policy resulting in his termination, and his attempt to intentionally conceal this information on his security clearance application in 2003 has not been mitigated. Clearance is denied.

07/26/2005

Applicant's foreign family ties have been mitigated and do not raise a security concern. Clearance is granted.

07/26/2005

Applicant, a naturalized U.S. citizen from the Republic of South Korea (ROK), has relatives who reside in and are citizens of the ROK. However, they are not agents of that government or vulnerable to coercion by that government. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns under Guideline B (foreign preference) about her close ties of affection to foreign citizens. Clearance is granted.

07/26/2005

Applicant's financial indebtedness remains current and he has not made a good faith effort to resolve his debts. His intentional falsifications on his security clearance application have not been mitigated. Clearance is denied.

07/26/2005

There is no right to a security clearance. Being a U.S. citizen does not entitle Applicant to a security clearance. The Administrative Judge was not bound by Applicant's opinion about the security significance of her ties and contacts with immediate family members in the People's Republic of China. The absence of any security violations by Applicant did not preclude the Judge from making an unfavorable security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/26/2005

Applicant's history of alcohol abuse, beginning in college and continuing until at least May 2004, includes two alcohol related arrests, a treatment program following a relapse, and a diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence that has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. His intentional falsifications on his security clearance application concerning his arrest history and alcohol treatment have also not been mitigated. Clearance is denied.

07/26/2005

Considering the record as a whole, the Administrative Judge had sufficient evidence to find that Applicant's omissions about his prior marijuana use were deliberate and intentional. Applicant has not shown that the Judge's evaluation of his falsifications was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/26/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant had the opportunity during the proceedings below to present evidence for the Administrative Judge to consider in her case. Applicant is not entitled to have the record reopened so she can present additional evidence about her current financial situation. Given Applicant's admissions to the SOR allegations and the evidence presented by Department Counsel at the hearing, the burden shifted to Applicant to present evidence to rebut or otherwise overcome the security concerns raised by her history of financial difficulties. Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the record evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/25/2005

This 54-year-old employee of a defense contractor has a history of marijuana use beginning in the 1970s, recurring in 1998/1999, and again in May 2002, when she was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and marijuana was found in her purse. In her October 1998 security clearance application, she was required to report any drug use within the previous seven years; i.e., after October 1991, but failed to mention her marijuana use from October 1991 to 1992. In her sworn statement of July 2003, she stated that her previous use of marijuana had occurred "more than seven years prior." Considering that the last use had occurred near the seven-year mark, the Government has not established that the omission was deliberate and with the intent to deceive. As to the marijuana use, however, mitigation has not been adequately established. Clearance is denied.

07/22/2005

Applicant is 42 years old, married, and has been employed by a defense contractor since 1999. He has been steadily employed since 1990. Applicant has $23,804.00 in delinquent debt dating back about ten years. Applicant and his wife separated in 2001, and Applicant contends his wife is responsible for $22,874.00 of the delinquencies. Applicant has not discussed the debts with his wife for many years and has not attempted to resolve them with his creditors. Applicant failed to disclose any of the debts on his security clearance application, and refused to allow the Defense Security Service access to his accounts. Clearance is denied.

07/22/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns over foreign preference as she has traveled to Russia to renounce her dual citizenship in April 2005 and her foreign passport has expired. She has similarly mitigated foreign influence concerns over her mother, aunt and father-in-law who are citizens of and reside Russia and over her sister and family who are citizens of and reside in Israel. Applicant has limited contact with them. Applicant assurances that she would contact appropriate U.S. officials if any pressure were attempted is credible given her long history at work since 2000 and her strong ties to the U.S. Clearance is granted.

07/22/2005

When admitting a document into evidence, an Administrative Judge is not required to discuss the contents of that document in extensive detail. Apart from the rebuttable presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence, a review of the decision below shows that the Judge made findings of fact and reached conclusions -- many favorable to Applicant -- that reflect consideration of Applicant's July 2002 written statement. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge's finding that Applicant falsified a security clearance application is sustainable. The Judge's finding of falsification provides a rational basis for the Judge's adverse conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/22/2005

Applicant is 55 years old and was employed with the federal government for nearly twenty years and held a top-secret security clearance. In February 2000, he tested positive for cocaine. As a result, removal proceedings were initiated against him and in August 2000, he entered into a Last Chance Agreement with his agency as a final opportunity to preserve his employment. He tested positive for cocaine again in September 2000, and he quit his job before the final termination process was completed. Applicant did not disclose these matters on his SF 86 completed in June 2001. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his drug involvement and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

07/21/2005

Because the Administrative Judge found in Applicant's favor with respect to the falsification allegation, Applicant's appeal argument about this aspect of the case is moot. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. During the proceedings below, Applicant had the opportunity to present evidence about her finances for the Judge to consider in her case. Applicant is not entitled to have the record in her case kept open beyond the proceedings below to submit additional evidence about her finances. There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge considered all the record evidence unless the Judge specifically states otherwise. Apart from that presumption, a reading of the decision below shows that the Judge specifically took into account character letters and letters of reference that were submitted on behalf of Applicant. The contents of those letters did not compel the Judge to conclude Applicant had met her burden of persuasion concerning the security concerns raised by her history of financial difficulties. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/20/2005

Applicant's isolated criminal activity occurred over four years ago and was motivated by a desire to protect her small children from harm. She has taken responsibility for her actions, and is unlikely to engage in criminal conduct in the future. Clearance is granted.

07/20/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate allegations of drug and alcohol use including several arrests for alcohol related driving offenses, and failure to report an alcohol education program on an assessment form even though he has changed his lifestyle during the past year. An insufficient period of time has passed since this change to justify the grant of a security clearance. Clearance is denied.

07/20/2005

Department Counsel cannot challenge the Administrative Judge's decision based on claims of falsification that are raised for the first time on appeal. Department Counsel has not shown that the Judge erred by applying Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 2. The presence or absence of particular Adjudicative Guidelines disqualifying or mitigating conditions is not dispositive of a case. The Judge was not compelled to issue an unfavorable decision just because certain Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions were not applicable to Applicant's case. The Judge's obligation to make findings of fact, reach conclusions, and apply pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines to each allegation in an SOR does not relieve the Judge of the obligation to evaluate an applicant's security eligibility under the whole person concept after considering the record evidence as a whole. The Board does not have to agree with the conclusions the Judge reached in this case to conclude Department Counsel has failed to show the Judge did not apply the whole person concept. Favorable decision affirmed.

07/20/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. There is no right to have the record kept open indefinitely so that a party can continuously submit new evidence for consideration in its case. Having decided to represent herself during the proceedings below, Applicant is not entitled to be relieved of the consequences of her decision. Given the record evidence in this case, the Administrative Judge was not required to conclude Applicant's financial difficulties were mitigated under Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions 3 and 6. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/19/2005

Applicant was born in Taiwan in 1962. She came to the U.S. in 1978, at age 15. She became a U.S. citizen in 1986, married, and has two teenage children. She has worked with a DoD security clearance since 1986. She has a warm relationship with family and in-laws in Taiwan. Two in-laws are retired Captains in the Taiwan Navy. She recognizes her responsibilities in protecting classified information and strongly avers that she would promptly report any improper contacts from any source. Company officials agree that she is trustworthy, dedicated and loyal to the U.S. Mitigation has been established. Clearance is granted.

07/19/2005

Applicant's criminal conduct, deliberate falsification of his 2 January 2002 security clearance application, and his financial irresponsibility disqualify him for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

07/19/2005

Despite efforts to lessen his control of a company he founded in the U.S., Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised regarding his ownership of Indian entities and involvement in other industry related activities in his country of origin. Applicant also has family living in India and owns rental real estate. Clearance is denied.

07/19/2005

The fact that criminal charges were dropped or dismissed does not preclude an Administrative Judge from finding that an applicant engaged in the conduct underlying the criminal charges. The Administrative Judge had to consider the record evidence as a whole and decide whether Applicant had presented evidence of extenuation, mitigation, changed circumstances, or reform or rehabilitation sufficient to warrant a favorable decision. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge had a rational basis for concluding Applicant had not demonstrated sufficient improvement to mitigate the security concerns raised under Guideline G and Guideline J. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/19/2005

Applicant, a U.S. native, automatically acquired Israeli citizenship in 1971 when he was living and working in Israel. After serving six months of compulsory service in the Israel Defense Force, he returned to the U.S. permanently in 1973. Since the 1980s, he has traveled to Israel to visit his spouse's family on several occasions, using his Israeli passport in preference to his U.S. passport until January 2003. The foreign preference concerns are mitigated by his surrender of his Israeli passport and filing for renunciation of Israeli citizenship in January 2005. The foreign influence concerns presented by the Israeli citizenship and residency of his two brothers-in-law and their families and Applicant's travels to Israel for family reasons are outweighed by his significant ties to the U.S. and reputation for personal integrity and trustworthiness. Clearance is granted.

07/19/2005

Applicant is 59 years old and has worked as a security engineer-consultant for the same defense contractor since 1999. From August 1996 to August 1999, he was unemployed and on disability; his unemployment was due to an on-the-job injury. Before he won his disability case, Applicant was living on a pension since he retired from the police department, and according to him that income barely covered his rent and his car payment. Eight credit card debts, totaling $29,173, were delinquent and written off as bad debts, and eventually sold to collection agencies. With a monthly net remainder income of $1,891, he is financially irresponsible and will not pay these old debts. He refuses to pay any of the collection agencies because the credit card services will not see any of the money. Clearance is denied.

07/19/2005

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by her adverse financial history by demonstrating 1) that her financial difficulties were due to circumstances beyond her control, 2) that she had dealt responsibly with her creditors as her means permitted, 3) that the four debts alleged in the SOR had either been paid or entered into a repayment plan by January 2004, and 4) that she had begun to deal with her delinquent accounts well before the SOR was issued. Clearance granted.

07/19/2005

As a matter of judicial economy, the Board can affirm an evidentiary ruling by an Administrative Judge on any proper basis supported by the record, even if that basis was not the one relied on by the Judge. Security clearance applications signed by Applicant were admissible without an authenticating witness. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge's finding of falsification is sustainable. Nothing in Executive Order 10865 or the Directive indicates or suggests an applicant must be granted a clearance unless the applicant's conduct and circumstances fall under all thirteen Guidelines listed in the Directive. Applicant has not shown that the Judge failed to apply the whole person concept in his case. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/19/2005

Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has a long history of failing to meet his financial obligations and inability to pay his debts, extending from about 1996 to the present. When completing his security clearance questionnaire in 2001, Applicant fraudulently concealed delinquent debts. He has shown significant progress in resolving his delinquent debts through repeated refinancing of his home, but has not yet been able to satisfy his creditors. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from his financial difficulties and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

07/18/2005

Applicant, a 24-year-old software engineer, mitigated allegations of drug use by passage of time since the last use, credible and demonstrated intent not to use drugs again, and a diagnosis of lack of drug dependency and abuse. Clearance is granted.

07/18/2005

Applicant is indebted to 12 different creditors in the approximate amount of $27,000.00. Most, if not all, of these debts are past-due, some for many years. These facts, together with the lack of any evidence suggesting applicant's financial condition is likely to significantly improve anytime soon, precludes a decision favorable to applicant. Clearance is denied.

07/15/2005

The Applicant has a long history of alcohol abuse, drug abuse and criminal conduct. His arrests include alcohol related offenses, various drug offenses and several serious crimes, which were reduced to Disorderly Conduct. This conduct is recent and not mitigated. In addition, the Applicant falsified a security clearance application in 2003. On the whole, adverse inference is not overcome. Clearance is denied.

07/15/2005

Applicant is a 74-year-old employee of a defense contractor. Applicant was born in India, and came to the U.S. in 1954. He worked for defense contractors for over 35 years, and has been employed by his current company since 1980. Applicant has held a security clearance for over 20 years, and worked on numerous classified projects for the national defense. Applicant's brother and three sisters are citizens and residents of India, but his contact with them is casual and infrequent. He also has financial interests in India, but they are insubstantial compared to his extensive financial interests in the United States. Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his immediate family members and financial interests in India. The available evidence does not raise any security concerns related to Applicant's personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

07/15/2005

Applicant has a history of drinking to the point of intoxication that continued until at least the end of May 2005. He also deliberately omitted relevant and material information from his security clearance application about his 1992 arrest for possession of marijuana. Clearance is denied.

07/15/2005

Applicant is 46 years old and has been drinking since age 18. Between 1976 and March 2003, Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, and, at times, drinking at least 15 beers daily. Applicant was arrested six times between 1979 and1996. Four of the arrests were for driving under the influence, one was for being drunk in public and interfering with arrest, and the other was for disorderly intoxication. Some of those arrests also included jail time and fines. Based on his lengthy period of excessive consumption of alcohol, it is not now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

07/15/2005

Applicant, a 67-year-old retired Air Force officer and defense contractor, successfully mitigated concerns relating to foreign influence occasioned by his 2003 marriage to a Russian citizen who had been a judge in Russia. She still has elderly parents and one brother in Russia. Applicant has held a security clearance for over 40 years and was held as a prisoner of war in Laos where he was tortured in an unsuccessful effort to extract information from him. Clearance is granted.

07/15/2005

Applicant left Vietnam in March 1983 on a refugee boat bound for Thailand. He immigrated to the United States in 1987, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1993. While he has eight siblings who remain resident citizens of Vietnam, he has seen them only once since he left Vietnam, when he traveled there in 1998. The potential for undue foreign influence through his siblings is minimal where none of them are foreign agents and are not in positions where they are likely to be exploited, and Applicant does not have any ongoing contact with them. Clearance is granted.

07/15/2005

Applicant mitigated financial considerations security concerns raised by her missing one of her Chapter 13 bankruptcy payments, having a delinquent $517 account in collection, and having greater monthly expenses than income. Clearance is granted.

07/15/2005

Applicant is a 44-year-old material coordinator who has worked for the same defense contractor since October 2001. He received nonjudicial punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1983 and 1997, as well as judicial punishment in 1995 for assault and 2001 for theft. He has a financial record dating back to 1995 that includes at least nine unsatisfied debts. Moreover, he falsely answered six pertinent questions on his security clearance application regarding actions against him, finances, drug usage, and prior security clearances. Applicant admitted to all allegations and countered with no extenuating or mitigating facts or explanations. Clearance is denied.

07/15/2005

Applicant used illegal drugs for 18 years until January 2004. He also was arrested for misdemeanor drug possession in 1999 and twice charged with larceny by check in 1992 and 1993. He mitigated personal conduct concerns because the omission of his drug use from his security questionnaire was not an intentional effort to deceive the government. However, Applicant failed to mitigate the concerns about his drug use and his criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

07/15/2005

A financial considerations concern arose during renewal of Applicant's security clearance when it was discovered he owed over $34,000.00 to various creditors. Additionally, a personal conduct concern arose when Applicant falsified his security clearance application by deliberately failing to list his delinquent debts. Applicant has failed to mitigate both concerns. Clearance is denied.

07/15/2005

Applicant accrued over $100,000 in delinquent debts consisting primarily of medical bills from recent cancer treatment his insurance did not pay and two car repossessions stemming from a 1995 divorce. His efforts to pay or otherwise resolve his debts have been hampered by illness, divorce, child support obligations, multiple moves to remote work sites outside the U.S., and periods of unemployment. However, Applicant has satisfactorily addressed all but six of the 25 debts listed in the SOR despite also financially helping his sister. Applicant's current financial status is sound and he has mitigated the security concerns about his finances by showing he is not likely to generate similar delinquencies in the future. Clearance is granted.

07/14/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant waived his right to a hearing when he responded to the Statement of Reasons. Applicant had the opportunity to respond to the File of Relevant Material and offer additional evidence for the Administrative Judge to consider in his case. Applicant cannot fairly challenge the Judge's decision based on a proffer of new evidence on appeal. Given the record evidence that was available to the Judge, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to find Applicant did not disclose his history of drug abuse to the government until after his employer notified the Defense Security Service that Applicant had tested positive for marijuana in a random drug test administered in September 2002. Given that finding, the Judge was not compelled, as a matter of law, to conclude Applicant's disclosures to the investigator were voluntarily made within the meaning of Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 2. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/14/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his failure to pay off judgments entered against him and other long delinquent accounts totaling more than $13,000. Clearance is denied.

07/14/2005

Applicant was convicted of several offenses between 1994 and 1999, and, until recently, had a warrant outstanding for his arrest because of his failure to complete community service hours ordered as part of the sentence for his 1999 conviction. The security clearance concern caused by his criminal conduct has been mitigated. He has also mitigated the security concern created be inaccurate information he provided during the course of a security clearance interview. Clearance is granted.

07/14/2005

Applicant was involved in an automobile accident and was arrested for aggravated DUI. Applicant knowingly and willfully failed to list the resulting civil suit in his SCA and failed to advise the DSS investigator that his vehicle had struck two pedestrians and one of them had filed suit against him. Applicant failed to mitigate personal conduct and criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

07/14/2005

Applicant is a 25-year-old female who has worked for a defense contractor since July 2003. While in college, Applicant used marijuana and experimented with two other illegal substances. In addition, she was present during a 2003 drug raid, although she was neither in possession of an illegal substance nor the subject of the investigation. Since giving up drugs in 2002, she has changed her priorities and her criteria for friendships. Her personal maturation since giving up drugs and her current drug-free lifestyle have mitigated security concerns. Clearance is granted.

07/14/2005

Applicant, a retired police officer, was convicted of attempting to carry a dangerous weapon on an aircraft. Although he pled guilty to the offense, he insists he would not have taken the weapon on the aircraft if he had successfully navigated through security. Applicant failed to mitigate criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

07/14/2005

Applicant's sporadic marijuana use from 1986 to 2002 has not been mitigated because he believes marijuana should be legal and he has provided mixed signals about his future intentions of using marijuana. Applicant's attempts to conceal the full picture of his marijuana use over an eleven year period from 1992 until 2003, support an adverse finding under both the personal conduct and criminal conduct guidelines. Clearance is denied.

07/14/2005

The Board will not disturb an Administrative Judge's weighing of the record evidence unless there is a showing that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant's disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge erred. Applicant has not shown that the Judge misapplied pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/14/2005

Applicant is a 58-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She is a group manager supervising about 100 people for a defense contractor that provides support for government information systems. She has held a security clearance since 1992. Applicant had two alcohol-related incidents away from work: one in 1995 and another in 2002. She subsequently completed the court-ordered evaluation and an alcohol rehabilitation program, and has made positive changes of behavior supportive of sobriety. Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from her alcohol consumption. Clearance is granted.

07/13/2005

Applicant is a senior partner in a defense consulting firm. Applicant engaged in adulterous conduct during each of his three marriages. He has been involved in at least six extra-marital sexual encounters during his present marriage. He has not informed his wife of his conduct. Applicant deliberately informed a security investigator that he did not engage in any adulterous conduct in his present marriage. He subsequently voluntarily informed the investigator of his conduct. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for sexual behavior and for all allegations of personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

07/13/2005

Applicant is a 49-year-old male who has been employed by a defense contractor since October 2001. He was born in Pakistan and became a naturalized United States citizen in 1999. Remaining in Pakistan are his mother and five brothers. Of his siblings, one serves in a branch of the Pakistan military and another is on the staff of a local government official. Applicant has failed to mitigate resulting security concerns. Clearance is denied.

07/13/2005

Applicant is an electronics technician for a defense contractor. He completed two security clearance applications and did not note on either one that he had been terminated from a previous job. He did not list any drug use on his first application, but did admit to marijuana use on his second application. He was interviewed twice by security agents. He admitted in the first interview to marijuana use, but no other drug use. He admitted to marijuana, cocaine, and crack cocaine use in the second interview. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

07/13/2005

Applicant is potentially subject to foreign influence because his mother and sister are citizens and residents of the People's Republic of China (PRC), where he traveled to the PRC in 1998, 2000, and 2001, and is likely to travel to the PRC in the future. Clearance denied.

07/13/2005

Applicant is a mechanist for a defense contractor. He previously worked for the railroad and was laid off, but found work shortly after the lay-off. He received less pay than he previously earned, until he was employed by the defense contractor. Applicant did not pay his debts. He now has a payment plan for some of his delinquent debts and is paying them off. He paid off two delinquent debts by borrowing money to pay them, thereby incurring more debt. Applicant presented information to mitigated only half of his delinquent debts. He did not deliberately omit reference to two judgments on his security clearance application. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns for personal conduct but not for the financial considerations. Clearance is denied.

07/13/2005

Applicant is a 26-year-old employee of a defense contractor. Married at 19 and a father by age 21, the couple held their family financially together without accruing significant debt while he attended college. With the birth of their son, however, their situation and their finances changed. His wife chose not to work, he pursued full-time employment, his son faced a medical crisis, and then his wife left them to commence an informal separation. Facing a new life as a single father, Applicant sought to return to financial stability and implemented a serious budget and debt payment plan. He had already commenced paying off his 12 principal debts when they were formally brought to his attention as part of this security clearance application process. Within six months, all but one debt was fully repaid. Applicant has mitigated security concerns. Clearance is granted.

07/13/2005

Applicant failed to timely file federal and state individual income tax returns for tax years 1993 through 2003, raising serious criminal conduct concerns. While his state tax debt has been repaid through garnishment of his wages, financial considerations persist where he owes more than $100,000 to the IRS. He misrepresented his tax situation in a May 2002 sworn statement, falsely claiming that he had filed his delinquent state and federal returns and owed no federal taxes. Clearance is denied.

07/12/2005

The Government established a prima facie case under Guideline B based on the fact applicant's mother, father, and grandmother are citizens and residents of Hong Kong. The applicant has, however, presented convincing evidence that his immediate family members in Hong Kong do not present a security risk. I therefore conclude that applicant has rebutted the Government's prima facie case. Clearance is granted.

07/07/2005

The Board does not re-try a case on appeal. Rather, the Board reviews the Administrative Judge's decision in light of the case record to determine whether the appealing party has identified any factual or legal error in the proceedings below. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge properly concluded that the totality of the facts and circumstances of Applicant's ties and contacts with relatives in Thailand raised security concerns under Guideline B, and that the burden shifted to Applicant to present evidence to refute, explain, extenuate, or mitigate those security concerns sufficiently to warrant a favorable security clearance decision. Applicant's disagreement with the Judge about the security significance of his contacts and ties with relatives in Thailand is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge's conclusions are erroneous. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/07/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant cannot fairly challenge the Administrative Judge's decision based on a proffer of new evidence on appeal. There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence unless the Judge specifically states otherwise. Applicant's two claims of factual error by the Judge lack merit. Adverse decision affirmed.

07/07/2005

Given the record evidence in this case, it was arbitrary and capricious for the Administrative Judge to fail to consider and discuss Applicant's probationary status. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge did not have a rational basis for applying Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions 2 and 3. The Judge offered no discernible basis for his conclusion that Applicant's continued drinking to intoxication did not pose a security risk. Department Counsel need not prove that Applicant's alcohol abuse resulted in a security violation or that Applicant's alcohol abuse poses a clear and present danger or imminent threat to national security. The Judge articulated a standard for establishing a nexus between alcohol abuse and security eligibility that exists in neither the Directive nor under existing case law, and which runs contrary to the language of the Concern section of Guideline G. Favorable decision reversed.

06/30/2005

A credibility determination based solely on a written record is not entitled to the same deference on appeal as a credibility determination based on observation of a witness's demeanor. The Administrative Judge identified inconsistencies in Applicant's statements about his past use of marijuana that are sufficient to support his conclusion that Applicant lacked candor about his past use of marijuana. A credibility determination is not a substitute for record evidence. There is no record evidence supporting the Judge's statement that it is possible that Applicant's marijuana use has not yet stopped. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge articulated a rational basis for his conclusion that Applicant had not demonstrated a clear intent to refrain from marijuana in the future. Under the Directive, there is no authority to grant a conditional security clearance. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/30/2005

Applicant's only criminal activity occurred over ten years ago. His numerous arrests since then do not establish criminal conduct because none resulted in charges being filed. He did not intentionally provide false information on a Security Clearance Application (SCA). Clearance is granted.

06/30/2005

Applicant's two alcohol-related incidents do not establish he has an alcohol problem. Clearance is granted.

06/30/2005

An Administrative Judge does not have unfettered discretion when deciding whether particular provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines are applicable. A Judge must exercise sound judgment within the parameters of the Directive when deciding which Adjudicative Guidelines disqualifying and mitigating conditions are applicable in a given case. The Judge failed to articulate a rational basis for her application of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1 and Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 3 in this case. Favorable decision reversed.

06/30/2005

This 34-year-old engineer has a history of alcohol abuse and alcohol-related arrests in 1994, 1997, 1998, and 2000. Since 2000, he gradually stopped consuming alcohol. His work supervisor during the last three years has a high opinion of Applicant's character, work ethic, and integrity. The totality of the record indicates rehabilitation and trustworthiness, and minimal risk that Applicant may fail to protect classified information. Mitigation has been adequately established. Clearance is granted.

06/29/2005

Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies. He falsified material facts regarding his financial delinquencies on his security clearance application. His continuing financial problems and his lack of candor about them raise serious security concerns. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

Applicant's marijuana use began in 1979 and continued with varying frequency until early 2003. During this time period he intermittently purchased small amounts of marijuana for his personal use, and was also charged with possession of marijuana in state courts on three occasions. Applicant was previously granted a clearance in 1988. He has never participated in any drug awareness, education, or treatment program of any kind. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concern raised by his extended substance abuse by failing to demonstrate a clear and unambiguous intent to remain drug free. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

Applicant has a history of delinquent debts totaling $39,395.00 Notwithstanding the ability to presently maintain current expenses with a surplus each month, Applicant provided no evidence he was paying down these obligations. He also gave false answers to one question on an April 2003, security clearance questionnaire. He has not mitigated security concerns over his finances and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

Applicant, a naturalized citizen of the United States, is employed by a federal contractor in information systems. His wife and her parents are citizens of the People's Republic of China (hereafter PRC.) His wife is applying for U. S. Citizenship. He has traveled to the PRC in the past and disclosed his foreign contacts. He was able to successfully mitigate the foreign influence security concerns of Guideline B raised by his immediate family members who live in the PRC. Clearance is granted.

06/29/2005

Applicant is a 24-year-old employee of a defense contractor. Following high school graduation, he accepted a lucrative position in January 1999 and eventually purchased a truck. The upkeep, gas, and insurance, along with his other expenses, became onerous and his payments were always late. His finances worsened during a brief period of unemployment and his truck was repossessed. Although he quickly found his current job, Applicant decided to move out from home, incurring even more expenses and further precluding payments to his debtors. He eventually filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

Applicant's improper use of his company computer to access pornographic sites for a four month period between January and May 2003, in violation of company policy, remains a security concern under the misuse of technology systems guideline and the personal conduct guideline. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

Applicant, a 50-year-old manager, owned real estate which he rented for investment purposes. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he became unable to rent, sell, or return the property. When he was unable to pay the mortgage, Applicant had a judgment entered against him in December 2000 in the amount of $14,226.00. The debt was satisfied in May 2005. Applicant has successfully mitigated the security concern raised by the judgment. Clearance is granted.

06/29/2005

It was alleged Applicant owed on 18 delinquent accounts totaling approximately $40,000. She has addressed five of the debts, but still owes 13 debts totaling approximately $35,000. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from a debt of such magnitude. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

Applicant owes nearly $70,000 in delinquent debt consisting of four unpaid credit card accounts. After receiving the SOR, Applicant acted to pay, settle, or otherwise resolve the debts. However, because the accounts have gone unpaid since 1996, his inaction has resulted in a 45% increase in the original amounts owed due to accrual of interest. His inaction until confronted with the security clearance ramifications of his financial problems also undermines the government's confidence he will avoid similar problems in the future. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

06/29/2005

Applicant was born and raised in Lebanon, immigrated to the United States in 1989 and became a United States citizen in 1995. Although able to mitigate foreign preference concerns surrounding his dual citizenship and having had and used a Lebanese passport, he was unable to mitigate foreign influence concerns as a result of his father and numerous relatives being resident citizens of Lebanon. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

Applicant has a history of not meeting his financial obligations. He has been financially overextended for several years and has refused to pay debts remaining from a failed business. He falsified material facts regarding his financial delinquencies on his security clearance application. His continuing financial problems and his lack of candor about them raise serious security concerns. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

Applicant owes the Internal Revenue Service about $360,000.00, and has more than $113,000.00 worth of other accounts that have been charged off as bad debts, submitted for collection, resulted in liens being filed against him, or were the result of a repossession. There is no prospect any of these accounts will ever be paid, and Applicant has not yet determined whether he will seek bankruptcy protection. He has failed to mitigate the security concerns caused by the financial considerations present in this case. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

Applicant is a communications engineer for a defense contractor. He came to the United States from Bosnia when he was a teenager, earned a college degree, married, and became a United States citizen. He surrendered his Bosnian passport to a United States official and tried to renounce his Bosnian citizenship. His mother and father are citizens of and reside in Bosnia. His father and mother have retired from their positions with the Bosnian government. Applicant has close ties of affection with his parents and has not mitigated security concerns for foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

Applicant's demonstrated poor judgement and unreliability disqualifies him for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

06/29/2005

Given this pattern of inaction for more than two years, Applicant's payment of one of the creditors in late October 2004, coupled with his decision to enroll in the debt consolidation plan, are insufficient to overcome this history of financial difficulties. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

Applicant is a 36-year-old truck driver employed for the last four years by a defense contractor. Applicant was arrested for some minor criminal offenses in 1996 and 1997 that he successfully mitigated. However, Applicant failed to divulge these arrests when he completed his security clearance application and later in sworn statements. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his personal conduct and his violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 1001. Clearance is denied.

06/29/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. It was proper for the Administrative Judge to rely on statements Applicant made at the hearing in reaching his decision in this case. Applicant has not shown any factual or legal error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/29/2005

Given the record evidence in this case, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Administrative Judge to conclude that Applicant had not successfully mitigated the security concerns raised by his history of financial difficulties. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant on appeal did not compel the Judge to make a favorable decision. Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the record evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/28/2005

Board does not issue advisory opinions. 10 U.S.C. 986(c)(2) applies to current drug addiction, not past drug addiction. Given the record evidence in this case, the Administrative Judge erred by concluding 10 U.S.C. 986(c)(2) applied to Applicant. Applicant's claim of error concerning the Judge's use of the DSM IV-TR is moot in light of the Board's resolution of the 10 U.S.C. 986(c)(2) issue. Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Applicant has not shown that the Judge's analysis under Guideline H, independent of 10 U.S.C. 986(c)(2), is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/28/2005

Applicant was born in Hong Kong in 1959, almost 40 years before it became a part of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1997. She came to the U.S. in 1970 with her parents at age 11, and has resided here ever since. They all became U.S. citizens in 1979. She is married, has two children, and has spent 22 years working in the U.S. defense industry. Her only ties to Hong Kong are the presence of one sister and two siblings-in-law, with whom her relationships are warm but not frequent. Her travel s to Hong Kong and the PRC have mostly been family vacations and no security significance is apparent. Applicant credibly avers she would promptly report any contacts involving U.S. security interests. Mitigation has been established. Clearance is granted

06/28/2005

Department Counsel is not required to present evidence that shows a direct or objective nexus between an applicant's conduct and circumstances and an unfavorable security clearance decision, or prove that an applicant poses a clear and present danger or imminent threat to the national security. A history of financial difficulties raises security concerns, whether it involves greed, financial irresponsibility, or financial misfortune. The presence of some mitigating evidence did not compel the Administrative Judge to make a favorable decision. Subject to review for action that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, the Judge must weigh the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable and reach a conclusion as to whether the applicant satisfied his burden of persuasion to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns raised by his history of financial difficulties. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/27/2005

Applicant, a naturalized citizen of the United States for more than 36 years, has lived, studied, worked, and raised a family in the U.S. continuously since 1969. He has one sister who is a citizen and resident of the People's Republic of China (PRC), and a brother who is a U.S. citizen doing business in the PRC. Applicant has a one-half interest in a condominium located in the Republic of China (Taiwan) that he and his brother inherited from their parents. Applicant's mother-in-law and brother-in-law are citizens and residents of Taiwan. He has mitigated the foreign influence security concern alleged in the Statement of Reasons. Clearance is granted.

06/27/2005

Applicant failed to mitigate allegations of financial considerations arising from $43,000.00 in overdue debts and personal conduct by writing 40-60 checks on accounts with insufficient funds during a one-year period. Although Applicant had external causes for the debts, his inability to manage his finances leading to a bankruptcy in 1988 for $100,000.00, and intent to file another now, fails to mitigate the allegations. Clearance in denied.

06/27/2005

Applicant's alcohol abuse--punctuated by two alcohol-related incidents between July 2001 and January 2003--was not mitigated where Applicant demonstrated no insight into her alcohol abuse and continued to drink at potentially abusive levels. Clearance denied.

06/27/2005

Applicant repeated the same pattern two days before the hearing by drinking alcohol instead of calling her sponsor. The ease in which she turned to alcohol rather than AA in January 2005 raises continuing security concerns there will be a recurrence of excessive alcohol consumption in the future. Clearance is denied.

06/27/2005

Applicant's financial irresponsibility renders her an unsuitable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

06/27/2005

Applicant's history of financial indebtedness caused by a separation from her boyfriend and inexperience in handling her own financial affairs has been mitigated by a good faith effort to repay her creditors or otherwise resolve her financial indebtedness. Clearance is granted.

06/27/2005

Applicant did not intentionally falsify her security clearance application concerning her arrest in 1994 and related job termination. Clearance is granted.

06/24/2005

Applicant, a Republic of China (Taiwan) born, former dual citizen of Taiwan and the United States, has fulfilled the requirements of the Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence, dated August 16, 2000, (Money Memorandum) by returning his Taiwanese passport to the Taiwanese Government. Additionally, he has renounced his Taiwanese citizenship. Applicant's wife and children are U. S. citizens. None of Applicant's family members, who are citizens and residents of Taiwan, are in a position to be exploited by Taiwan in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to these family members and his loyalty to the United States. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted.

06/24/2005

Absent a showing that a party was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence during the proceedings below, a party is not entitled to have the case remanded so the party can have an additional opportunity to present more evidence. Applicant's pro se status did not relieve him of the obligation to prepare for the hearing and take timely steps to protect his rights. Obtaining and possessing a foreign passport are indicia of the exercise of the rights and privileges of a citizen of a foreign country. Given Applicant's admissions and the evidence presented by Department Counsel, the burden of persuasion shifted to Applicant to present evidence sufficient to extenuate or mitigate the security concerns raised by his ties with immediate family members and in-laws in Lebanon. With one exception that constitutes harmless error, Applicant has hot shown that the Judge's conclusion under Guideline B and Guideline C are arbitrary or capricious. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/24/2005

A review of the record below shows Applicant was provided a reasonable opportunity to prepare for his hearing, and an opportunity to raise any procedural concerns with the Administrative Judge at the hearing. Absent a showing that a delay in the issuance of a Judge's decision resulted in prejudice to the applicant in any meaningful way, mere proof of delay in the issuance of the Judge's decision is not sufficient to warrant remand or reversal. Applicant has not demonstrated any material errors with the Judge's findings of fact. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge's conclusions under Guideline F are arbitrary or capricious. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/23/2005

Applicant's foreign family ties have been mitigated and do not raise a security concern. Clearance is granted.

06/23/2005

Applicant's foreign family ties have been mitigated and do not raise a security concern. Clearance is granted.

06/23/2005

Applicant's foreign preference, including his dual citizenship, and his foreign influence, including foreign family members have been mitigated. Clearance is granted.

06/23/2005

Thirty-six-year-old Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies caused by his initial irresponsibility as well as a variety of unfavorable and unfortunate circumstances during the period 1994-97. A number of accounts became delinquent and were eventually closed by creditors, charged off, or sent to collection. While he made some superficial attempts to address some accounts, the evidence supports the conclusion that he paid little, if any, attention to his debts and merely ignored them over an extended period. His lengthy period of inaction until November 2004 when he went to CCCS to start a payment agreement--months after he received his Statement of Reasons--raises grave questions and doubts about his security eligibility and suitability. Clearance is denied.

06/22/2005

Applicant's history of financial indebtedness caused by a long period of unemployment, underemployment and a divorce has been mitigated by a good faith effort to repay his creditors or otherwise resolve his indebtedness. Clearance is granted.

06/22/2005

Applicant's filing for bankruptcy did not bar the Administrative Judge from considering the negative security implications of Applicant's overall history of financial difficulties. The Judge articulated a rational explanation for his conclusion that Applicant had not mitigated his financial difficulties sufficiently to warrant a favorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/22/2005

Applicant, a 49-year-old employee of a federal contractor with a security clearance, admitted marijuana and cocaine abuse over a 15-year period. He purportedly successfully completed a drug treatment program in 2001 and has been abstinent for over four years. However, there is no prognosis from a credentialed medical professional. On a security clearance application he omitted listing his cocaine use, and concealed his drug abuse during periods when he was holding a security clearance. Applicant has not mitigated these drug involvement and personal conduct security concerns . Clearance is denied.

06/22/2005

Although applicant has lived in the United States since 1980, he maintains significant ties to Egypt. In addition, he did not respond truthfully to questions dealing with his ties to Egypt on a Security Clearance Application (SCA). Clearance is denied.

06/22/2005

The SOR alleged Applicant owed seven debts totaling approximately $14,000. Some debt has been paid, some debt is being paid, however, two debts totaling approximately $8,500 remain unresolved. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from the financial concerns. Clearance is denied.

06/22/2005

Between 1997 and 1999, Applicant incurred debts totaling approximately $22,681. These delinquent debts are still outstanding. Along with these outstanding debts, he has a negative monthly income net remainder of approximately $900. On or about June 1, 2004, he filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Applicant has failed to successfully mitigate the security concern stemming from his history of not meeting financial obligations. Clearance is denied.

06/22/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns over foreign influence. His mother, a citizen of the U.S. and Israel, now lives in the U.S. While his sibling and niece in Israel are dual citizens of the U.S. and Israel and reside in Israel, Applicant has limited contact with them. Based on regular security briefings, Applicant assures he would contact his security officials if any pressure were attempted. Given his long history of responsible conduct at work, all his supervisors and the military site manager highly recommend Applicant continue to maintain the security clearance he has held since 1985 without any infractions. Clearance is granted.

06/22/2005

In 1997, Applicant became gravely ill and was not expected to live until Christmas. Applicant was prescribed a four-drug medicinal cocktail, which he took twice a day and caused severe nausea. Applicant used marijuana to counter the nausea. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from Applicant's drug usage. Clearance is granted.

06/22/2005

Applicant was employed by a large defense contractor as an electrical engineer for over 20 years but terminated for unsatisfactory performance and excessive absence. Applicant falsified his resume and job application by not listing a bankruptcy and other employments, and falsifying the reasons for his termination. He was finally hired by a defense contractor based on his false representations. Applicant also deliberately falsified his security clearance application so it was consistent with his application for employment. He has not mitigated security concerns for personal conduct and criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

06/22/2005

Applicant is a 61-year-old female employed as a clerk by a defense contractor in the Republic of Korea ("South Korea"). Although originally a native of that country, Applicant married a United States citizen and became naturalized in 1971. After raising four children, she found herself accompanying her second husband back to South Korea in 2001, where he assumed employment with a U.S. defense contractor. As that marriage failed, Applicant sought and was offered her present employment in South Korea. Also residing in South Korea are her two sisters, both of whom are residents and citizens of that country. Applicant failed to provide any evidence in mitigation regarding the security concern raised by the potential of foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

06/21/2005

Considering the record as a whole, the Administrative Judge's finding that Applicant falsified a security clearance application is sustainable. The Judge's analysis of Applicant's criminal conduct under Guideline J is somewhat inconsistent and confusing. To resolve this appeal, the Board need not decide whether it is possible to reconcile the inconsistencies in the Judge's analysis under Guideline J. The Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's falsification would be sufficient to affirm the Judge's overall unfavorable security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/20/2005

This 51-year-old engineer has a history of significant financial irresponsibility extending to the present day. He shows little understanding of the negative impact his debt history has on his security clearance eligibility. He lied on his security clearance application by deliberately omitting his delinquent debts. No mitigation has been shown. Clearance is denied.

06/20/2005

The Applicant's drug use and falsification of a Government questionnaire has not been mitigated by a sufficient showing of reform and rehabilitation. Adverse inference is not overcome. Clearance is denied.

06/20/2005

Applicant's foreign influence, including close family ties, pose a potential security risk and have not been mitigated. Clearance is denied.

06/17/2005

The Applicant has either paid off, is in the process of paying off, or successfully disputed, all of the debts alleged in the Statement of Reasons. His debt problems were aggravated by health problems he suffered, as well as a family illness. Adverse inference has been overcome. Clearance is granted.

06/17/2005

A Statement of Reasons (SOR) is an administrative pleading that does not have to satisfy the strict requirements of a criminal indictment. All that is required is an SOR that places an applicant on adequate notice of the allegations being made against the applicant so that the applicant has a reasonable opportunity to respond to the SOR allegations and prepare a defense. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. Given the record evidence, the Judge had a sufficient basis for concluding Applicant was in a position of vulnerability. Given the record evidence, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude Applicant's falsification of a security clearance application was not mitigated. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/16/2005

This 61-year-old Chief Engineer was born in Israel in 1943, came to the United States (U.S.) in 1969, and became a U.S. citizen in 1979. He has surrendered his Israeli passport and renounced his Israeli citizenship. He is married, and has two grown children and three grandchildren. He has worked for major defense contractors for 25 years, and has assets of close to $3 million. There is no record of any security-related problems. His 95-year-old mother and two sisters still reside in Israel, but Applicant makes a strong case that he would never do anything to harm U.S. security interests. Mitigation has been established. Clearance is granted.

06/16/2005

Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. It is legally permissible for the Judge to take into account whether Applicant offered documentation to corroborate his claims that certain debts had been satisfied. Nothing in Guideline F limits its reach to only those cases involving financial irresponsibility. Seeking relief in bankruptcy does not immunize an applicant's history of financial difficulties from review under Guideline F, nor does it preclude a Judge from making an unfavorable security clearance decision under Guideline F. Applicant has not shown that the Judge misapplied pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines. The extenuating or mitigating effect of circumstances outside an applicant's control does not preclude consideration of how the applicant reacts or responds to those circumstances, and whether the applicant's conduct in response to outside events is reasonable. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/16/2005

Application of the Adjudicative Guidelines disqualifying and mitigating conditions requires the exercise of sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole. Even if Applicant's financial difficulties arose due to circumstances outside of his control, the Administrative Judge could consider whether Applicant acted in a reasonable manner when dealing with his financial difficulties. Given the record evidence, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude Applicant had not mitigated the security concerns raised by his history of financial difficulties. Security clearance decisions are not limited to consideration of an applicant's conduct at the workplace. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/15/2005

Applicant has been involved with illegal drugs since 1983. He has not used drugs since August 2004, but stopped only after being notified the government had denied his request for clearance because of his drug use. It is highly probable he will resume his drug use in the future. Clearance is denied.

06/15/2005

This 51-year-old Principal Engineer was born in Taiwan in 1951 and moved to the U.S. in the early 1980s, to attend college. He became an American citizen in 1991 and, in 1993, he married an American who had been born in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Applicant has extensive family ties on Taiwan and his wife's parents still reside in the PRC. These ties create a risk that has not been adequately mitigated or extenuated. Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied.

06/15/2005

Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to consider Applicant's explanations for his conduct in light of the record evidence as a whole and the Judge's assessment of the credibility of Applicant's hearing testimony. Applicant has not shown the Judge misapplied any of the pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines. The Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's theft of $40,000 from the account of a deceased mutual fund owner and Applicant's falsification of a security clearance application are supported by the record evidence as a whole. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/15/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns over foreign influence. He and his wife have been naturalized citizens of the U.S. since 2001 and reside in the U.S.; his children are U.S. citizens. He testified persuasively he has limited ties to his siblings and no interaction with his in-laws who are citizens of and residents in the Republic of China (Taiwan). Although a citizen of Taiwan, his mother lives in the U.S. for six months and is a registered alien. He has not visited Taiwan since 2001 and assures he would contact his security officials if any overt pressure were attempted. Given his history of responsible conduct in the U.S. at work, his supervisor recommends Applicant for a security clearance as his preference and loyalty is exclusively for the U.S. since he became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2001. Clearance is granted.

06/15/2005

When reviewing an Administrative Judge's decision, the Board does not review individual sentences or phrases in isolation from the rest of the decision. When a party challenges the Judge's application of the Adjudicative Guidelines, the Board has to decide whether the party has shown the Judge reached conclusions not supported by substantial record evidence, acted in a manner that is arbitrary or capricious, or acted contrary to law. The appealing party must do more than simply disagree with a Judge's weighing of the record evidence. The appealing party must show how the Judge weighed the record evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude Applicant had not mitigated the security concerns raised by his contacts with a woman who is a Russian citizen living in that country and with his brother who is an Iranian citizen living in that country. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/15/2005

Applicant's failure to mitigate his established financial irresponsibility since 1995 renders him an unsuitable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

06/15/2005

Applicant's close familial ties with citizens and residents of the People's Republic of China, her retention of her Chinese passport after becoming a U.S. citizen, and her failure to report on her security clearance application a trip she took to the Peoples' Republic of China in August and September 1998 raise serious security concerns. Clearance is denied.

06/14/2005

Applicant's foreign family ties have been mitigated and do not raise a security concern. Clearance is granted.

06/14/2005

Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge acted in good faith when issuing his decision. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Given the record evidence, the Judge's adverse conclusions under Guideline B are not arbitrary or capricious. It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude Applicant had not mitigated the security concerns raised by his ties to immediate family members in the People's Republic of China. Decisions by Hearing Office Judges are not legally binding precedents that must be followed in other cases. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/14/2005

Financial considerations concerns arose as a result of Applicant being in arrears on 11 debts, six of which were student loans. Apart from students loans, Applicant incurred the majority of these debts in college due to the availability of easy credit. After college, he fell behind on his student loans as a result of credit card debt incurred in college. Applicant has since paid or resolved past debts, and consolidated and remains current on his student loans. A personal conduct concern arose over a discrepancy of failing to fully list all past debt, which Applicant demonstrated was inadvertent error. Financial and personal conduct concerns have been mitigated. Clearance is granted.

06/14/2005

Applicant has experienced financial difficulties and delinquent debts for almost 10 years due mostly to her own financial carelessness and lack of action in paying or otherwise resolving her debts. Applicant also deliberately falsified her responses about finances and prior criminal conduct in a personnel security questionnaire and in an interview with a government investigator, conduct which violates federal law. She has failed to mitigate the resulting security concerns about her financial condition, her personal conduct, and her criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

06/14/2005

Applicant's falsification of her clearance application and financial irresponsibility renders her an unsuitable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

06/13/2005

Applicant is a 50-year-old employee of a defense contractor. For more than 10 years, she has had eight delinquent debts totaling $21,931; she timely pays all of her other accounts. Applicant states the delinquent debts were incurred because she took care of her mother financially, after her mother's stroke in about 1994 through 2000 when her mother died. Her financial situation was aggravated by Applicant's heart attack in 2002. Applicant presents a current financial picture of stability. Her assets are listed at $269,700. She feels that she is still in a precarious financial situation and will not pay off the delinquent debts until she is more financially solvent. She also falsified information on her security clearance application. Applicant has failed to meet the ultimate burden of persuasion. Clearance is denied.

06/13/2005

The Applicant has not mitigated the security significance of his wife's Iranian connections, including family members and substantial financial interests. In addition, the Applicant has a history of sexual misconduct with and involving children and the use of the Internet to obtain pornography at work. He has also lied in a questionnaire, a sworn statement and during an interview with a Department of Defense investigator. Adverse inference is not overcome. Clearance is denied.

06/13/2005

However, the commitment he has shown to his loved ones does not mitigate the deliberate falsifications. Clearance is denied.

06/10/2005

Applicant is a 40-year-old electronic technician working for a defense contractor. A naturalized citizen since 1992, he resides with his father, mother, wife, and children, all of whom are United States citizens, as well as with a brother and a sister who are citizens of Vietnam. Also citizens of Vietnam, as well as current residents, are two additional sisters, a brother, and a brother-in-law. Applicant is currently supporting the entry of one sister into the United States and expresses a desire to seek similar entry for the rest of his family. Applicant failed to provide any evidence in mitigation regarding the security concern raised by the potential existence of foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

06/10/2005

Applicant is a 52-year-old over-the-road truck driver. She has worked for a federal contractor since 2003. Applicant held a security clearance for 5 years while in the Air Force and later as a civilian. Applicant was arrested in March 2002, for failure to obey a peace officer, resisting arrest and disturbing the peace. Applicant pleaded guilty and her case was held in abeyance for 12 months, and was later dismissed. Applicant was advised by her attorney she did not have to report the incident, because it was not on her record. Applicant voluntarily provided the information during her interview with the Defense Security Service. Applicant's arrest was an isolated incident and she is successfully rehabilitated. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns regarding her criminal and personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

06/10/2005

Applicant has over $17,000 in debts that are delinquent, charged-off, or in collection status. She failed to contact most of the debtors and has not paid most of them any money. It is not likely that she will be able to resolve these debts in the next year. Applicant deliberately falsified her security clearance application by failing to note her delinquent debts. Clearance is denied.

06/10/2005

Applicant was born in Portugal and came to the United States as an infant. He was educated in the United States, is a naturalized United States citizen, and has a United States passport. He applied for and received a Portugese Citizen Identification Card after becoming a United States citizen and receiving a United States passport. He obtained the identification card to be able to inherit his family's holdings in Portugal and to have a bank account in Portugal. Applicant has exercised dual citizenship and has not mitigated security concerns for foreign preference. Clearance is denied.

06/10/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant does not have a right to have the record kept open so that he can provide updates on his financial situation on an ongoing basis. The Administrative Judge explained why she concluded Applicant had not presented evidence that extenuated or mitigated his history of financial difficulties. Applicant has not shown that the Judge's reasoning is arbitrary or capricious. Because there is no presumption of error below, the Judge's unchallenged findings and conclusions under Guideline E stand. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/10/2005

Applicant misused a government information technology system by accessing the Internet for personal purposes, including adult (pornographic) sites at work on multiple occasions from about July 2001 to mid-October 2001. He was terminated from his defense contractor employment for cause in January 2002 as a result of his misconduct. His disregard of known regulations and policies regarding the use of a government-provided computer system raises serious concerns about his overall judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness, and his willingness and ability to properly protect classified systems, networks, and information. Clearance is denied.

06/10/2005

Applicant's disagreement with the Administrative Judge's weighing of the record evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Although deference must be given to a Judge's credibility determination, it cannot be relied on by the Judge to the exclusion of documentary or other record evidence that is relevant and pertinent to the Judge's findings of fact. Whether there is sufficient record evidence to support a Judge's findings of fact is a question law, not a question of fact. It was arbitrary and capricious for the Judge to rule at the hearing that he was going to find in Applicant's favor with respect to the issue of falsification and then rule differently in his decision without any explanation why he changed his ruling. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge's finding of falsification is not sustainable. Adverse decision reversed.

06/10/2005

Applicant is a senior electronics technician for a defense contractor. On his security clearance application, Applicant answered "NO" to the question concerning his use of illegal drugs. Applicant subsequently admitted to repeated use of cocaine over an 18 month period in the late 1990s. He has not informed his family of his use of the illegal substance. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for personal and criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

06/09/2005

Applicant is married to a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Iran of Iranian parents. Her father and brother are Iranian citizens, and her father still lives in Iran. After several years of estrangement, Applicant's wife has re-established a bond with her father and he visited the couple in the U.S. in 2003. Applicant's father-in-law was employed by, and now consults for, the National Iranian Oil Company, a sub-company of the Iranian Oil Ministry. Applicant failed to mitigate foreign influence security concerns. Clearance is denied.

06/09/2005

Applicant is making consistent progress in resolving her delinquent accounts. She has mitigated the security concern that arose from her prior financial instability. Clearance is granted.

06/09/2005

Without a showing of identifiable prejudice to the appealing party, a delay in the issuance of an Administrative Judge's decision does not warrant remand or reversal. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant's honesty and candor with the federal government did not preclude the Judge from evaluating the security significance of the facts and circumstances disclosed by Applicant. Department Counsel presented evidence sufficient to allow the Judge to conclude that the security concerns had been raised due to Applicant's possession and use of an Iranian passport to travel to Iran, Applicant's wife being an Iranian citizen, and Applicant's and his wife's contacts with her father (who is an Iranian citizen living in Iran). Considering the record as a whole, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude Applicant had not presented evidence sufficient to meet his burden of persuasion under the Directive. Applicant has failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge was fair and impartial and carried out his duties in good faith. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/09/2005

Applicant did not rebut the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. Decisions by Hearing Office Judges are not legally binding precedent that the Board must follow, distinguish, or reconcile with its own decisions. It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude that Applicant did not present evidence that warranted application of Foreign Influence Mitigating Conditions 1 and 3. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/08/2005

Applicant whose initial financial delinquencies were discharged in bankruptcy in June 1998, permitted his finances to deteriorate to the point where his accounts became delinquent and either sent to collection or charged off. With mounting financial pressures, he did nothing with 95% of his accounts until the trustworthiness review commenced. In 2003, in reply to a question regarding delinquent accounts, he lied and denied having any accounts 180 days delinquent. Questions and doubts remain as to his eligibility for occupying an Information Systems Position designated ADP-II. Eligibility is denied.

06/08/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns over his criminal conduct and personal conduct as he had no intent to falsify and has reformed his conduct. He mistakenly relied on advice of his lawyer that under state statute he was not required to report his 2000 arrest and misdemeanor conviction for drug abuse. On his 2002 security form, he disclosed two of his arrests and convictions and failed to remember and disclose two other misdemeanor convictions. While he had a string of criminal misdemeanor convictions from 1980 to 2000, he established clear evidence of successful rehabilitation as he has a fine employment record and a stable home life. Clearance is granted.

06/08/2005

Applicant obtained a discharge under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code in 1998. Since then, he has allowed a number of accounts to become delinquent and either charged off or submitted for collection. He has failed to take any action to resolve the vast majority of these accounts. He also failed to disclose either the bankruptcy or the delinquent accounts in a security clearance application he submitted in December 2000. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns caused by his financial considerations and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

06/08/2005

This 51-year-old Principal Engineer was born in Taiwan in 1951 and moved to the U.S. in the early 1980s, to attend college. He became an American citizen in 1991 and, in 1993, he married an American who had been born in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Applicant has extensive family ties on Taiwan and his wife's parents still reside in the PRC. These ties create a risk that has not been adequately mitigated or extenuated. Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied.

06/08/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant waived her right to a hearing during the proceedings below. Because there is no indication in the case file that Applicant was denied her right to ask for a hearing, she is not entitled to have her case remanded so she can now have the hearing she decided to forego. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. Given the record evidence below, the Judge had a rational basis for concluding Applicant did not extenuate or mitigate the security concerns raised by her ties and contacts with immediate family members who are Laotian citizens, some of whom live in Laos. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/08/2005

While in the Army, Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in 1990, and used cocaine once in 2000. He tested positive for cocaine through urinalysis and was punished through an Article 15 hearing in December 2000. In his most recent security clearance questionnaire, Applicant listed his DUI and one-time drug use, but deliberately omitted his Article 15 punishment. He has failed to mitigate security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct), and, because his falsification violates federal law, Guideline J (criminal conduct). Clearance is denied.

06/07/2005

Applicant is a 61-year-old engineer employed by a defense contractor. He left Taiwan in 1968 to pursue graduate studies in the United States and then remained in this country, becoming a naturalized citizen in 1980. His work takes him on regular trips to the People's Republic of China. He has visited Taiwan through both business stop-overs and personal travel in order to visit his 92 year old father. During these visits, he has incidental contact with three of his siblings, and, occasionally, with his aged mother-in-law. He has contributed to his father's maintenance and toward the final expenses of his late brother. Applicant has mitigated concerns that his relations are agents of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited by a foreign power. Clearance is granted.

06/07/2005

Applicant has a lengthy history of alcohol-related criminal conduct. Applicant falsified his security clearance application by deliberately omitting information about charges and convictions related to alcohol. He failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his criminal conduct, alcohol consumption, and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

06/07/2005

Applicant exercised extremely poor judgment when he decided in the 1980s and early 1990s to opt out of the income tax system. However, based on the passage of time since this conduct occurred (at least ten years), applicant's recognition that he was wrong, his timely compliance with the tax laws since 1994, and the lack of any credible evidence that he is currently experiencing financial difficulties, Guideline F is found for him. Clearance is granted.

06/07/2005

Applicant, a 53-year-old security guard, failed to mitigate security concerns over his alcohol consumption, criminal conduct relating to alcohol, and personal conduct for failing to report employment at a company from which he was discharged for alcohol related conduct, his alcohol treatment, and all but the most recent criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

06/07/2005

A security clearance that was ended or terminated approximately 7 years ago does not warrant reciprocity under Section 2-203 of the NISPOM. Section 2-203 of the NISPOM does not preclude a federal department or agency from conducting periodic reinvestigation of persons holding a security clearance, or periodically reevaluating whether a person should continue to retain a security clearance that was previously granted. Applicant failed to demonstrate the Administrative Judge erred by concluding that neither Foreign Influence Mitigating Conditions 1 and 3 were applicable to Applicant's family ties with immediate family members in Iran. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge erred by not explaining why he decided to not apply Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 4, but that error was harmless in light of the Judge's other sustainable findings and conclusions under Guideline B. Applicant did not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/07/2005

This 55-year-old native-born American recently married a woman from Belarus, who he met via the Internet. He made several trips to Belarus and arranged for her to come to the U.S., where they were married in late 2003. Applicant's mother-in-law and brother-in-law remain in Belarus but contacts are not frequent and Applicant cannot communicate with them because of language differences. Applicant was a Marine for 23 years and has held a clearance for a long period. He has told his wife that he would end their relationship before betraying U.S. security interests. Mitigation has been established. Clearance is granted.

06/06/2005

06/06/2005

Applicant had two alcohol-related arrests in 2002. She failed to list one of these alcohol-related arrests on the security clearance application she completed in August 2002. Nothing in the record indicates a diagnosis of alcohol dependence or abuse. Applicant presented evidence to mitigate her personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

06/06/2005

Financial considerations concerns arose over Applicant's falling behind on chapter 13 payments to his trustee, an arrearage in state taxes for 1993, and failing to file and pay state and federal income tax returns from 1998 through 2002. Applicant suffered a financial setback following a costly separation and divorce. In 2003, on his own volition he filed all required state and federal returns and has either paid or resolved past due debts and taxes. Failure to file and pay state and federal taxes also raised criminal conduct concerns. However, in light of his affirmative corrective action, Applicant has successfully mitigated financial and criminal conduct concerns. Clearance is granted.

06/06/2005

Applicant's brother and sister are citizens of and reside in Macedonia. He frequently travels from Kosova to Macedonia to stay with relatives. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from his foreign relatives. Clearance is denied.

06/03/2005

The record evidence does not support the Administrative Judge's application of Foreign Influence Mitigating Conditions 1 and 3. The Judge's finding that Applicant's Libyan passport no longer exists is not sustainable. Applicant's use of a Libyan passport to circumvent U.S. law banning travel to Libya is a not mitigating consideration. Libya's poor human rights record and its presence on the U.S. government's list of countries involved with state-sponsored terrorism are relevant considerations. Favorable decision reversed.

06/03/2005

Applicant has a history of arrests for driving while under the influence of alcohol. He was diagnosed by a physician as alcohol dependent and completed an alcohol rehabilitation treatment program. His discharge summary from the rehabilitation treatment program recommended he participate in aftercare comprised of an external support system such as Alcoholics Anonymous. While Applicant claims to be abstinent since 2002, he has not followed the recommendations for his aftercare and attends Alcoholics Anonymous only on occasion, claiming he cannot participate regularly because of transportation problems. Applicant is unable to mitigate the security concerns associated with his alcohol dependence. Clearance is denied.

06/03/2005

Applicant has a long history of abusing alcohol. He was convicted of aggravated driving while under the influence of alcohol for offenses occurring in 1996 and 2000. On one occasion he appeared at work smelling of alcohol. Despite alcohol treatment programs, Applicant relapsed on several occasions. Although he has been abstinent for 15 months, an insufficient period of time has elapsed to determine if Applicant has made the long-term commitment to sobriety necessary to mitigate the alcohol security concerns. Clearance is denied.

06/03/2005

Applicant was involved in four domestic violence incidents between 1988 and 2002, and an argument at work with a co-worker in 1994. The 1988 domestic violence incident resulted in Applicant's first wife obtaining a divorce. Two of the other domestic violence incidents resulted in Applicant being arrested. He completed an anger management program following the 2002 arrest, and he and his wife have been actively involved in marriage counseling for the past few years. Applicant has mitigated the criminal and personal conduct security concerns that existed in this case. Clearance is granted.

06/03/2005

Security concerns persist over Applicant's criminal conduct and drug involvement leading to his 2002 conviction for illegally distributing marijuana following his arrest in December 2001. He sold marijuana for profit while he had a security clearance even though he understood such marijuana distribution was against security policies. While he has a fine employment record, such excellence on the job does not erase the security significance of his choice to become involved with illegal drug sales while holding a security clearance. Clearance is denied.

06/03/2005

There is sufficient record evidence to support the Administrative Judge's finding about Applicant's stated intention concerning future use of marijuana. In DOHA proceedings, a Judge can make a finding of criminal conduct even if the applicant has not been formally charged with a criminal offense by the relevant criminal justice authorities. Falsification of a security clearance application constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, a federal felony. Applicant's admissions provide an ample basis for the Judge's finding that Applicant falsified a security clearance application in an effort to conceal the full extent of his drug abuse. Under the Directive, there is no authority to grant a conditional security clearance. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/02/2005

Applicant consumed alcohol to excess and the point of intoxication from 1982 until June 2003. Applicant admits driving while drunk on numerous occasions and was arrested and convicted for DUI four times. He realizes once he starts to drink he cannot stop. He has been abstinent since June 2003. Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his alcohol consumption and criminal conduct. Clearance is granted.

06/02/2005

The Applicant's extensive history of alcohol related arrests, non-alcohol related arrests, alcohol abuse problem, drug history and falsification of a Government questionnaire, has not been overcome by a showing of reform or rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.

06/02/2005

Department Counsel does not have to disprove the applicability of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1. Rather, Applicant has the burden of proving its applicability to his case. Nothing in Guideline B limits its scope or applicability to situations involving only coercive forms of influence. The record evidence does not support the Judge's conclusion that Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline B. Decisions by Hearing Office Judges are not precedents that are binding on the Board. The Board need not agree with the Judge's conclusions under Guideline C to decide that Department Counsel has not demonstrated those conclusions are erroneous. Favorable decision reversed.

06/02/2005

Applicant, a 26-year-old security guard, failed to mitigate drug, alcohol, criminal conduct, and personal conduct allegations since he continues to use marijuana and alcohol after a diagnosis of alcohol and marijuana abuse. He also failed to report his treatment for abuse on his security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

06/02/2005

Applicant had a delinquent debt of over $21,000, was arrested and charged with DUI in 1991 and 1998, and was involved in several domestic affrays between 1997 and 1999. Applicant mitigated the financial considerations, criminal conduct, and alcohol consumption security concerns. He failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his failure to list his arrests, charges, and convictions on his security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

06/02/2005

Applicant accrued nearly $25,000 in delinquent debts through at least seven personal credit accounts as well as unpaid taxes between 1996 and at least 2003. Applicant's tax debts stem from his failure to file his income tax returns on time for five different tax years. Applicant's financial problems started with a job change but have been exacerbated by poor financial management and unwillingness to pay according to terms he agreed to with various creditors. Applicant also deliberately omitted several delinquent accounts from his security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

06/02/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. The Judge's conclusions about Applicant's history of financial difficulties are not arbitrary or capricious. The Judge's finding that Applicant falsified a security clearance application is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/02/2005

Given the record evidence, the Administrative Judge did not err by finding that Applicant knowingly harbored an illegal alien in violation of federal law. Applicant's claim of bias is so speculative and lacking in substance that it does not begin to raise a colorable question about the Judge's good faith. Having decided to rely on a personal representative at the hearing, Applicant cannot fairly complain now about the quality of that representation or seek to be relieved of the consequences of it. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.

06/01/2005

This 25-year-old employee of a defense contractor has a history of drug involvement going back to 1995. He also has a history of sometimes excessive alcohol consumption that began in 1998 and has resulted in three alcohol-related arrests. The record does not establish that the two problems are safely behind him. Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied.

05/31/2005

Applicant is 38 years old and works as a facilities engineer and internal security officer making about $45,570 annually. He had eight outstanding debts totaling $71,200, which started accumulating in 1993, when he began living well beyond his means. With a loan from mother-in-law, he has shown a good-faith effort to resolve his financial problems by paying off most of his outstanding debts. He has a stable job as a facilities engineer and internal security officer for a defense contractor and he is highly regarded by his employer for his excellent work ethic. Overall, he has demonstrated his commitment to overcoming his financial difficulties and he has taken steps to establish he is now financially responsible. He has successfully mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted.

05/31/2005

Applicant is 35 years old and is employed as a senior consultant for a defense contractor. He used and purchased marijuana in the past and he has used cocaine at least twice. Applicant was in high school when he first used marijuana out of curiosity. He continued using marijuana in college. After graduating from college with his second bachelor's degree, he moved out of the living accommodations he shared with roommates; they too smoked marijuana. Living in his own place, he stopped using drugs of any kind because he wanted to concentrate on his career and he knew drug use could be an impediment to upward mobility. Applicant's approximately three years of abstinence from drugs, together with his credibly stated intention not to use marijuana or cocaine in the future, successfully mitigates the security drug involvement concerns. Clearance is granted.

05/31/2005

Applicant is a draftsman for a defense contractor. He incurred delinquent credit card debts after leaving active military service. He also used student loans to complete an associate's degree at a technical college. Applicant acknowledged the credit card debts, but has taken no action to pay the overdue creditors. He chose to start paying off his student loans first. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns based on financial considerations. Clearance is denied.

05/31/2005

Applicant's abuse of marijuana from January 1996 to February 2003 is not mitigated where he used marijuana after applying for a clearance in January 2002 and stated a possible intent to continue to use marijuana during a subject interview in April 2003. Clearance denied.

05/31/2005

Applicant has carried significant delinquent debt since at least 2001. Despite recent efforts to resolve his delinquencies, his personal circumstances and failure to timely address his debts continue to hamper any reasonable chances of resolving his financial problems in the near future. Additionally, Applicant deliberately withheld information about his finances from a security clearance application (SF 86) because he was concerned about the adverse impact of that information on his chances for obtaining a clearance. Clearance is denied.

05/31/2005

Applicant has been indebted to the IRS for back taxes, penalties and interest for many years. His current IRS debt stands at about $35,000.00. Although applicant's testimony that he intends to begin making payments to the IRS in the near future was sincere, the evidence does not establish he is in a position to make any meaningful progress toward satisfying this debt anytime soon. Clearance is denied.

05/31/2005

In addition, Applicant's sponsorship of his mother for two years does not make him an unacceptable security risk as there have been no efforts by the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) to exert influence on him through his mother or sister by coercive or non-coercive means. Clearance is granted.

05/31/2005

Applicant has a history of alcohol consumption concerns, to include several minor alcohol related incidents that occurred a number of years ago, a 2002 DUI arrest, and a subsequent diagnosis as alcohol dependent sustained partial remission. He has fully mitigated these concerns by a positive behavior change supportive of sobriety and sustained abstinence for three years coupled with a favorable diagnosis and prognosis. Personal conduct concerns arose over a discrepancy over failing to list a past alcohol-related incident, which Applicant demonstrated was an inadvertent error. Clearance is granted.

05/31/2005

The Applicant as a young man had a three year span, 1999 through 2001, where drinking got him into trouble with the police on several occasions. He also was arrested several times for driving offenses during the same period. He has matured, has gone three years without any criminal conduct, and no longer drinks. The Applicant did not falsify a Government questionnaire as alleged in the Statement of Reasons. Adverse inference is overcome. Clearance is granted.

05/31/2005

Applicant admitted his use of marijuana, as well as his experimentation with a number of other drugs on his security clearance application. Nearly all of the use occurred while he was a student in high school and college. Applicant has been candid throughout the security process and there is no evidence of record of further drug use on his part since December 2002. Applicant no longer associates with people with whom he used marijuana. He is a skilled and conscientious information assurance engineer and now recognizes that drugs have no part in a successful career. Applicant's drug use is mitigated in accordance with Mitigating Condition 1and Mitigating Condition 3. Clearance is granted.

05/31/2005

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his adverse financial history by demonstrating 1) that his financial difficulties were largely due to circumstances beyond his control, 2) that he had dealt responsibly with his creditors as his means permitted, 3) that he had begun to deal with his delinquent accounts before the SOR was issued, and 4) that all the debts alleged in the SOR had been addressed well before the hearing. Clearance granted.

05/31/2005

Given Applicant's admissions and the evidence presented by Department Counsel, the Administrative Judge had a rational basis for concluding Applicant's family ties with in-laws who are citizens of the People's Republic of China and who live there raise security concerns under Guideline B. The record evidence supports the Judge's finding that Applicant falsified a security clearance application by not fully disclosing his drug use. Given the record evidence, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude application of Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 3 was not warranted. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/31/2005

Applicant has a history of delinquent debts which she accumulated during periods of illness-related work losses, added family responsibilities and pay refusals from various trucking concerns she worked for. While her efforts in contacting her employers to set up repayment plans with her creditors holding mostly charged-off balances are encouraging, they are not enough to mitigate Government concerns about her past inability to stabilize her finances. Also, Applicant is not able to mitigate the Government's security concerns about her omissions of her delinquent debts from her security clearance application in 2001. Clearance is denied.

05/31/2005

Applicant's financial irresponsibility renders him an unsuitable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

05/31/2005

Applicant's alcohol abuse--punctuated by three alcohol-related incidents between April 1984 and November 1998--was mitigated by the passage of over six years without recurrence of alcohol-related incidents as well as positive lifestyle changes supportive of sobriety. Clearance granted.

05/27/2005

Applicant used marijuana at least 20 times from March 1996 to June 2003. He continued to use the drug after the birth of his two children, and last used the illegal substance after submitting his security clearance application. He was arrested and convicted for drinking in public shortly after his last admitted use of marijuana. Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns pertaining to his drug involvement and questionable judgment. Clearance is denied.

05/27/2005

Applicant is 43 years old, married with three children, and works as a printer for a defense contractor. Applicant filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1996. Since then, she has incurred four delinquent credit card accounts and an unpaid $56 power company judgment rendered in 1997. Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concern. Clearance is denied.

05/27/2005

Applicant is unable to successfully mitigate the security concern stemming from his history of financial problems, which are ongoing. Clearance is denied.

05/27/2005

Applicant owes 13 debts totaling approximately $11,200, which have not been paid. Applicant admits falsifying two questions on her Security Clearance Application, Standard Form (SF) 86, related to financial delinquencies. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from her unpaid debts and the falsification of her SF 86. Clearance is denied.

05/27/2005

Applicant, a 30-year-old employee of a defense contractor, works as a software specialist. Applicant was alleged to have ten delinquent debts totaling $24,000.00. He admitted the existence of several delinquent debts as alleged but with explanation. He refused to pay others and denied several others that were paid but failed to offer evidence in support of his claims. Thus, he failed to mitigate most of the allegations. Clearance is denied.

05/27/2005

Applicant accrued almost $8,000 in delinquent debt through a combination of financial mismanagement and a divorce. A 1997 bankruptcy discharged debts her ex-husband failed to pay as required by their 1996 divorce decree. Thereafter, Applicant accrued new delinquencies when an attempted reconciliation with her ex-husband failed and he abandoned her. Those debts have been discharged through a 2004 bankruptcy. Applicant's circumstances have changed sufficiently to mitigate the resulting Guideline F security concerns. She has also mitigated Guideline E concerns from her alleged falsification of a security clearance questionnaire (SF 86). Clearance is granted.

05/27/2005

Applicant was arrested four years ago and charged with aggravated battery, false imprisonment, and shooting into a building. The charges stemmed from a single domestic dispute with his wife. Through a plea agreement, he completed court-ordered domestic violence awareness and anger management training. In turn, the weapons and imprisonment charges were dismissed and adjudication was withheld as to the battery charge. He has had no other arrests, domestic problems, or other adverse conduct. An allegation of deliberate falsification of his security clearance application is unsubstantiated by the record. His criminal conduct is not recent, was an isolated event, and is mitigated through clear evidence of rehabilitation. Clearance is granted.

05/27/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns over foreign influence as he and his immediate family became naturalized citizens of the U.S. in 1982 and reside in the U.S. He testified persuasively that he has casual and infrequent ties to his siblings and in-laws who are citizens of and reside in the Republic of China (Taiwan) and who have no ties to the government. He has not visited Taiwan since 1998 and has scrupulously complied with security rules since he was granted access in 1987 and 1992 by the Department of Defense (DoD) and in 1997 by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Given his long history of responsible conduct in the U.S., it is improbable that foreign pressure on these distant relatives would create a situation that could influence Applicant. He persuasively verifies that his preference and loyalty is exclusively for the U.S. since he became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1982. Clearance is granted.

05/27/2005

Applicant is an electrical engineer for a defense contractor and he has had a security clearance since 1977. He has failed to file both his federal and state income taxes for tax years 1998 through 2001. He has not shown that he will be motivated to timely file his taxes in the future, and he has already established a pattern of delinquencies when it comes to filing his taxes. Applicant's untimely filing of past due tax returns precludes a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

05/27/2005

The government's evidence did not establish that Applicant had immediate family members living in Taiwan. Alternatively, Applicant demonstrated that those family members were not agents of a foreign government or so situated as to provide a point of influence on Applicant. Clearance granted.

05/27/2005

Applicant deliberately falsified his security-clearance application by omitting being charged with two felony offenses in response to a question requesting that specific information. Clearance is denied.

05/27/2005

Applicant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in 1986 and again in 1999. He failed to list either arrest in a security clearance application he submitted in July 2000, however, there was no intent on his part to falsify the application. He has mitigated the security clearance concern allegedly caused by his personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

05/27/2005

Applicant is 49 years old. He is an electrical engineer working for a defense contractor. Applicant is married with two children, both born in the U.S. Applicant immigrated from Iran in 1975 to attend college. He did not return for 20 years, until 1996 and 1998, to visit his brothers and other family members located there. Applicant obtained and used an Iranian passport on both trips for his own convenience. Applicant did not mitigate the Guideline B Foreign Influence security concerns. Clearance is denied.

05/27/2005

Applicant was arrested for family violence-assault in 1997. He had been drinking prior to the incident and continues to drink two to three beers a day. Applicant mitigated the criminal conduct and alcohol consumption security concerns raised by his conduct. He failed to mitigate personnel conduct security concerns raised by his dismissal from a court-ordered substance abuse program because of his unexcused absences and his deliberate falsification of his security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

05/27/2005

There is no right to a security clearance, there is no presumption in favor of granting a security clearance, a security clearance should not granted unless there is an affirmative determination that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for a particular applicant, and doubts must be resolved in favor of the national security. The record evidence does not support the Administrative Judge's application of Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition 4. Even though it would be legally permissible for the Judge to reach a favorable decision without applying any Adjudicative Guidelines mitigating condition, the Judge still would have to articulate a rational basis, supported by the record evidence as a whole and consistent with pertinent provisions of the Directive, for concluding it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. The Judge failed to articulate a rational basis for his favorable conclusions under Guideline B or his favorable conclusions under Guideline C. Favorable decision reversed.

05/26/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Even in the absence of any evidence that Applicant was involved in another alcohol-related incident after December 2000, the Administrative Judge could consider Applicant's admissions that she drank to intoxication on other occasions after December 2000. Given the record evidence of Applicant's history of episodic alcohol abuse, Applicant had the burden of demonstrating reform, rehabilitation or changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a favorable security clearance decision. Considering the record as a whole, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude that Applicant had not presented sufficient evidence to overcome the security concerns raised by her history of episodic alcohol abuse. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/25/2005

Applicant's efforts to expand his financial base by buying into a purportedly profitable business in 2001 unfortunately resulted in financial difficulties arising from internal disputes about company direction and mismanagement. So long as he had a permanent job, or the remaining severance pay after being laid off from that job, he managed to survive financially. However, the money ran out, the partnership squabbles took their toll, and Applicant bailed out of the partnership burdened by substantial business-related financial delinquencies. Applicant's debts were discharged under Chapter 7 in March 2004. Questions and doubts as to his eligibility for occupying an Information Systems Position designated ADP-II have been satisfied. Eligibility is granted.

05/25/2005

Between December 1999 and November 2001, Applicant was arrested twice for driving while intoxicated (DWI). On another occasion she was arrested for public intoxication, but avoided being charged with DWI by lying to the police about who was driving. In a statement to the DSS, Applicant admitted her alcohol problem and lying to the police. Through her confession, her abstinence from consuming alcoholic beverages, and the unlikelihood of recurrence of these problems, Applicant mitigated alcohol consumption and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is granted.

05/25/2005

Applicant has a history of financial instability. As of July 21, 2003, she had not paid federal taxes, interest, and penalties for eight specific tax years, and she had not paid state taxes, interest, and penalties for three specific tax years. On her security clearance application, she falsified material facts regarding federal and county tax liens placed against her property. Applicant's financial problems and her lack of candor about them raise serious security concerns. Clearance is denied.

05/25/2005

Following a domestic assault inident in January 2002, Applicant successfully completed ten months of outpatient counseling for domestic violence. Despite being diagnosed with alcohol abuse, he was not referred for any alcohol treatment and given a good prognosis on discharge. His continued consumption of alcohol does not raise security concerns where it has been in moderation. Clearance is granted.

05/25/2005

A review of the procedural history of Applicant's case shows DOHA placed Applicant on adequate notice of his rights under the Directive, Applicant waived his right to a hearing, and Applicant waived his right to respond to the File of Relevant Material and provide additional information for the Administrative Judge to consider in his case. Nothing in the record below provides any basis for Applicant's claim that he was denied the right to prepare his case for presentation before a DOHA Judge. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/25/2005

Applicant is an aircraft structural mechanic for a defense contractor. In the same year he retired after 20 years of active military duty, he was divorced from his wife, required to pay some of their bills, and give her half of his retired pay. He has delinquent debts from credit cards used to pay for tools, appliances, and necessities both before and after the retirement and divorce. He made no effort to pay the delinquent debts and has not mitigated security concerns under Guideline F. Clearance is denied.

05/25/2005

Applicant is 42 years old. He had been working since April 2002 as a mechanic for a defense contractor and lost his job in November 2004 since he lacked a security clearance. He began using drugs and alcohol in high school. Applicant used methamphetamines, with varying frequency, from about 1980 to 2001; he also sold the drug. He used and purchased cocaine and marijuana; he once grew marijuana at home. On his security clearance application, he failed to indicate that he had used drugs in the past because he felt he might not get a security clearance. He has been drug-free since October 2001. Applicant has not been rehabilitated long enough to show that he can be trusted with the nation's secrets. Clearance is denied.

05/25/2005

Security concerns remain over Applicant's criminal conduct in 1998 and 2001 and over his personal conduct in failing to disclose his 1998 arrest for Simple Battery on his 2000 security clearance application. While he completed anger management in 2001, that alone is insufficient to establish clear evidence of successful rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.

05/25/2005

Applicant's alcohol-related arrests in 1981 and 2000 and personal conduct in failing to disclose this adverse information to his supervisor establish security concerns. Applicant continues to drink and failed to provide any documents which show positive changes in his behavior supportive of sobriety. Doubt remains as to whether he is fully rehabilitated given his arrests and questionable conduct in failing to disclose his 2000 alcohol-related arrest while on company business. Clearance is denied.

05/25/2005

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his adverse financial history by demonstrating 1) that his financial difficulties were due to circumstances beyond his control, 2) that he had dealt responsibly with his creditors as his means permitted, 3) that two of the three debts alleged in the SOR were not his responsibility, and 4) that he had begun to deal with his delinquent accounts well before the SOR was issued. Clearance granted.

05/25/2005

Applicant's financial difficulties were caused in large part by factors beyond his control. However, he has taken little or no meaningful action to address his tens of thousands of dollars in past-due debts during the past several years. This fact, together with the fact his current income, at best, barely meets his current expenses, precludes a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

05/25/2005

Applicant's history of drug involvement and minor criminal conduct that occurred primarily during his high school years has been mitigated due to passage of time and positive significant life changes. His subsequent marriage ended in a costly separation and divorce that precipitated a series of financial problems that have been mitigated by payment or payment arrangements. Personal conduct concerns arose over a discrepancy of past drug use, which Applicant demonstrated was an inadvertent error. Applicant has successfully mitigated drug involvement, criminal conduct, financial considerations, and personal conduct concerns. Clearance is granted.

05/24/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. The Administrative Judge's material findings of fact about Applicant's history of financial difficulties are sustainable. Given the record evidence in this case, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude that Applicant's history of financial difficulties was not extenuated or mitigated sufficiently to warrant a favorable decision. Applicant is not entitled to have the case remanded to allow him the opportunity to present additional evidence for consideration in his case. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/24/2005

Applicant has the burden of presenting evidence sufficient to warrant application of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1, and Department Counsel does not have the burden of disproving its applicability. Nothing in Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1 distinguishes between agents of a foreign power based on whether they work for an agency, department or entity that is defense-related or one that is not defense-related. Department Counsel is not required to prove that there is a clear and present danger or imminent threat to classified information before access to classified information is denied or revoked. Nor does Department Counsel have to prove that a particular foreign country is targeting a particular applicant before access to classified information is denied or revoked. The Judge's application of Foreign Influence Mitigating Conditions 1 and 3 is not sustainable. Favorable decision reversed.

05/23/2005

Applicant is a software engineer for a defense contractor. She was born in the People's Republic of China (PRC). Her parents and brothers are citizens of and reside in the PRC. She visits her parents in the PRC frequently with her children, and maintains frequent contact with them. Applicant has not met her heavy burden to mitigate security concerns under Guideline B. Clearance is denied.

05/23/2005

Applicant has a history of financial instability and has been financially overextended for several years. He falsified material facts regarding his financial delinquencies on his security clearance application. His continuing financial problems and his lack of candor about them raise serious security concerns. Clearance is denied.

05/23/2005

Applicant is a 31-year-old human factors specialist employed by a defense contractor. Not long after his divorce became final in 2003, Applicant went to a lounge and spent several hours drinking with acquaintances. After his cohorts left, he moved his binge to a nearby pub. For inexplicable reasons, he snatched a purse from the pub's bar and got as far as the alley before being stopped. In court, he was given a pre-trial diversion, probation, and sent to an alcohol/drug school. He has no other record of either substance abuse or criminal activity. Because of the unlikelihood of the singular circumstances recurring, and owing to the fact that this was an isolated incident, Applicant mitigated security concerns related to his criminal conduct. Clearance is granted.

05/23/2005

Applicant's underage consumption of alcohol from about age 17 does not raise alcohol consumption concerns where it was in moderate amounts and did not cause social, occupational, or legal problems. Evidence of possession of liquor in public by a minor, conduct punishable by a fine of between $200 and $500, is limited to one occasion in August 2001. Clearance is granted.

05/23/2005

Applicant continues to consume alcohol after receiving treatment for diagnosed alcohol dependence, raising doubt as to whether his alcohol abuse is safely in the past. Applicant also used illegal drugs to at least 1996. He was not candid about his illicit drug involvement on his August 2002 security clearance application or in a June 2003 sworn statement. Alcohol consumption and personal conduct concerns persist. Clearance is denied.

05/23/2005

Born in Israel, Applicant, exercised dual citizenship when he possessed and used a foreign passport after obtaining U.S. citizenship in 1984. However, once he understood the security policy requirements, he immediately took steps to surrender his foreign passport as required and renounced his Israeli citizenship. While his elderly mother and sister live in and are citizens of Israel, Applicant credibly established he would not be subject to pressure as he has strong ties in the U.S. and has previously twice held a security clearance without incident. If overtures were made to pressure him or his family, he would report such a contact or threat to a responsible security official. Thus, Applicant mitigated security concerns under Guidelines C and B. Clearance is granted.

05/23/2005

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his adverse financial history by demonstrating 1) that his financial difficulties were due to circumstances beyond his control, 2) that he had dealt responsibly with his creditors as his means permitted, 3) that the 17 debts alleged in the SOR were either satisfied or included in a debt management plan Applicant entered into with a credit counseling agency, and 4) that he had begun to deal with his delinquent accounts as soon as his medical condition permitted. Clearance granted.

05/23/2005

Applicant successfully mitigated the foreign preference security concern based on his clear preference for the U.S. But he is unable to successfully mitigate the foreign influence security concern based on his close family ties to Iran, a country hostile to the U.S. Clearance is denied.

05/23/2005

Applicant has mitigated security concerns regarding his outside activities by terminating his company's agreement with an Indian corporation. He no longer requires that company's services, having hired employees to perform the work. Applicant has also thereby mitigated foreign influence concerns to the extent he no longer engages in foreign travel to India to further that business relationship or has regular contact with that company's directors. Remaining foreign influence concerns regarding his parents are also mitigated. His parents have permanent residence status in the United States, spend half of each year here, and intend to apply for U.S. citizenship. Although Applicant's father receives a small pension from the Indian Government, Applicant's parents are not financially dependent on it, receiving greater income from their investments. Clearance is granted.

05/23/2005

Applicant was convicted of felony larceny and involuntarily terminated from her job in retail sales in 1991 for helping a relative to shoplift merchandise from the store where Applicant worked. She deliberately did not disclose her employment termination or her felony offense on her security clearance application and falsely denied any involvement in the theft in a sworn statement provided to a government investigator. Criminal conduct and personal conduct concerns persist. Clearance is denied.

05/23/2005

Applicant is a 44-year-old retired Army Sergeant First Class now employed as a trainer who has had marital difficulties resulting in two arrests but no convictions and the issuance of a protective order over the past ten years. Criminal conduct mitigated by passage of time and recent actions to change his behavior. Clearance is granted.

05/23/2005

Applicant was investigated for several acts of improper behavior in the workplace and unauthorized use of government property while employed as a civilian machinist by his state's air national guard. The investigation was closed due to insufficient evidence for criminal prosecution; however, it presents sufficient reliable adverse information to disqualify him from holding a clearance. Applicant also deliberately omitted relevant information from a sworn statement he gave after a subject interview with government investigators. He has failed to present sufficient evidence to mitigate, extenuate, or refute the government's case. Clearance is denied.

05/20/2005

A decision by a Hearing Office Administrative Judge is not legally binding precedent that another Hearing Office Judge or the Board has to follow. Four Board decisions cited by Applicant are distinguishable and do not establish the Judge erred in this case. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge failed to evaluate his case under the whole person concept. There is no authority to grant Applicant a conditional security clearance. The Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's history of drug use and Applicant's falsifications provide a rational basis for the Judge's unfavorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/20/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant cannot fairly claim the Administrative Judge made an erroneous finding based on a proffer of evidence that was not before the Judge. There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is fair and impartial and a party seeking to rebut that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion. Applicant's claims of factual error do not raise any colorable claim of bias. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. With one possible exception, which would constitute harmless error at most, Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge's findings and conclusions are erroneous. The Judge's evaluation of the facts and circumstances of Applicant's case is consistent with the whole person concept. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/19/2005

The Applicant is a U.S. Merchant Marine Officer, who received an Expeditionary Award for his service during Desert Storm. His wife and two children lived with the Applicant in the U.S.; but they returned to India, so that his wife could apply for permanent residency status. Her status was approved in June of 2004, and she will soon formally immigrate to the U.S. with their two U.S. born children. The Applicant's mother, a housewife in her 80s, will remain in Applicant's $20,000 apartment in India. He sends his mother between $2,000~$4,000 each year to cover her medical expenses. His net worth in te U.S. is nearly $50,000. The Applicant has seven siblings living in India. He has little contact with them, except for one sister, who is a travel agent. They are not connected to any foreign government. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

05/19/2005

This 53-year-old engineer was born in 1951 in Egypt, and moved to Israel with his family at age 8 because of religious persecution. In 1986, he came to the U.S. on an Israeli passport and began working as a software engineer, and has resided here ever since. He became a U.S. citizen in 1993. He is married, and has children who were born here. He has retained and renewed his Israeli passport (now expired) and used it to travel to Israel. He has not renounced his Israeli citizenship. He has numerous close family members who are Israeli and reside there, including one brother who is a retired Air Force officer. Applicant has not shown an unequivocal preference for the U.S. and the record does not permit a finding that the presence and status of his family members in Israel constitute an acceptable risk. Mitigation has not been established. Clearance is denied.

05/18/2005

Applicant encountered financial difficulties adapting to the loss of a lengthy overseas cost of living allowance and adjusting spending habits downwards, a costly two-year marital separation, and transitioning from career active duty Air Force to civilian life. During the separation, Applicant became responsible for the sole support and care of his two teenage sons. Applicant has since reconciled with his wife and paid or resolved all past debts, thus mitigating financial considerations concerns. Clearance is granted.

05/17/2005

Applicant has produced insufficient evidence to dispel the potential for adverse influence resulting from ties to his mother, parents-in-law, and siblings-in-law in Iran. Clearance is denied.

05/17/2005

Nothing in the case file supports Applicant's claim that he was told a decision would be issued within 30 days of the hearing. Absent a showing that Applicant was prejudiced in any meaningful way, he cannot rely on the passage of time between the hearing and issuance of the Administrative Judge's decision as a basis for claiming the Judge's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant has not rebutted or overcome the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Under the Directive, an applicant's security eligibility is adjudicated under the same standards regardless of whether the applicant's position requires a security clearance for access to classified information or access to a secure area. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/17/2005

Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. The presence of conflicting record evidence does not diminish the Judge's responsibility as the trier of fact. The Judge had to consider the record evidence as a whole, assess the credibility of the testimony of Applicant and the investigator who interviewed Applicant, and make a finding as to Applicant's intent or state of mind when he completed the security clearance application. It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude Applicant had not presented evidence sufficient to mitigate his falsification of the security clearance application. The Judge properly concluded Applicant's falsification was a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. Applicant has not demonstrated the Judge was compelled as a matter of law or logic to conclude Applicant's conduct was mitigated under Criminal Conduct Mitigating Conditions 1, 2 and 6. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/17/2005

Applicant's father, mother, brothers, and sisters are citizens of and reside in Sierra Leone. Applicant has two sons that may reside in Sierra Leone, if they are still alive. His mother lived with him in the United States before returning to Sierra Leone to be cared for by her children. He has no contact with his father and sons, and limited contact with his mother and siblings. Sierra Leone is a war torn lawless country. Applicant has not met his heavy burden to mitigate security concerns based on the foreign influence of immediate family members. Clearance is denied.

05/17/2005

Applicant is a senior computer systems analyst technical writer for a defense contractor. In the mid-1980s, she was divorced and was required to raise two children as a single mother. She incurred debt because of these reasons beyond her control. Her debts were discharged in bankruptcy in 1998. She paid her delinquent debts to the IRS, and the two alleged credit card debts were discharged by the bankruptcy and are not active debts. Applicant's debts are not recent and she initiated a good-faith effort to repay the debts. She has mitigated security concerns based on financial considerations. Clearance is granted.

05/17/2005

Applicant has a history of unpaid debts. His financial statements indicated an ability to repay old debts, maintain current expenses, with a surplus each month. The record contains no evidence that bills were paid even though he made assurances that they were being paid. He gave false answers on two questions of a security clearance questionnaires. He has not mitigated security concerns over his finances and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

05/16/2005

There is no legal requirement that an Administrative Judge must mention or discuss each and every piece of record evidence when making a decision. Furthermore, there is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge considered all the record evidence unless the Judge specifically states otherwise. Applicant's ability to identify record evidence that is favorable to him, standing alone, is not sufficient to rebut or overcome the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. The Board need not agree with the Judge's characterization of Applicant's testimony to conclude Applicant has not met his heavy burden of showing that the Judge's credibility determination is unsustainable. Given the Judge's findings of fact about Applicant's episodic alcohol abuse, the Judge had a rational basis for concluding Applicant's overall history of alcohol abuse raised security concerns under Guideline G. Applicant's candor and honesty with the federal government about his drinking did not preclude the Judge from considering the security implications of Applicant's overall history of alcohol abuse. Applicant's value to his employer does not negate or diminish the security implications of his history of alcohol abuse. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/16/2005

The Board need not agree with the Administrative Judge to conclude Department Counsel has failed to show it was arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to apply Drug Involvement Mitigating Condition 1 and Drug Involvement Mitigating Condition 3 in light of the record evidence in this case. Because the SOR did not allege Applicant engaged in falsification, and because the SOR was not amended to include any allegation that Applicant engaged in falsification, the Judge had no legitimate basis for analyzing Applicant's case in terms of falsification. Department Counsel has failed to rebut or overcome the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Favorable decision affirmed.

05/16/2005

Applicant, a U.S. naturalized citizen and a citizen of Switzerland solely by virtue of his birth and his parents' birth in the country, has retained and used his Swiss passport when it is more convenient than using his U.S. passport when traveling abroad. He fails to absolve himself of preference concerns. Because Applicant's immediate and extended family members who reside in Switzerland are shown to be potentially vulnerable to pressure or coercion in light of Applicant's country preference, foreign influence concerns are not mitigated either. Security concerns posed by Applicant's past use of marijuana and expressed intention to continue using the substance in the future is cause for invoking the smith Amendment's (10 U.S.C. Sec. 986) mandatory preclusion from holding a security clearance. Clearance is denied.

05/16/2005

Applicant's mother is a citizen of Iran and has applied for U.S. citizenship. Applicant has two brothers and one sister who are citizens and residents of Iran. She traveled to Iran to visit her family members in 1995. Applicant's familial ties to citizens and residents of Iran raise serious security concerns because they could be exploited by a hostile government and result in the compromise of classified information. Clearance is denied.

05/16/2005

There is a rebuttable presumption that an applicant has ties of affection or obligation to immediate family members, and that contacts with immediate family members are not casual in nature. Applicant did not present evidence that rebutted those presumptions. The Administrative Judge did not misapply the Board decisions cited in her decision. A decision by a Hearing Office Judge is not legally binding precedent that other Hearing Office Judges must follow in other cases. Applicant has not shown that the Judge failed to apply the whole person concept in her analysis of Applicant's case. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/16/2005

Applicant accrued about $33,000 in unpaid delinquent debt between 1992 and 2000. However, the security concerns over Applicant's financial difficulties are mitigated by Applicant's improved financial condition and his efforts to repay his delinquencies. To date he has satisfied more than 70% of his total debt and has demonstrated sound financial practices so as to avoid similar problems in the future. Clearance is granted.

05/13/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Although Board must give deference to an Administrative Judge's credibility determinations, those determinations are not immune from review. An unfavorable credibility determination provides a Judge with a basis for deciding to disbelieve an applicant's testimony. However, mere disbelief of an applicant's testimony, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis for a Judge to find an applicant did something for which there is no independent evidence. The Judge erred by using an adverse credibility determination as a substitute for record evidence. The Judge erred by using his adverse credibility determination, instead of record evidence, as a basis to reach an adverse conclusion about Applicant's reliability and trustworthiness. The Judge's decision does not reflect an evaluation of Applicant's case under the whole person concept. Adverse decision reversed.

05/12/2005

Applicant is 60 years old, an engineer for a U.S. defense contractor, and married with children born in the U.S. Applicant was born in Israel, worked for the Israeli defense industry and defense ministry, fought in two wars as a member of the Israeli Army, and has family living in Israel. Applicant has an Israeli passport obtained and used for travel after he became a U.S. citizen in 1995. Applicant has not surrendered his Israeli passport, and wants to keep it so he can retain his monthly stipend from the Israeli government for his war injuries, and to retain any future health and retirement benefits from Israel. Applicant has not mitigated the foreign influence and foreign preference security concerns. Clearance is denied.

05/12/2005

Applicant is a 43-year-old technical employee of a defense contractor who has used marijuana and alcohol for many years. She filed an application for a security clearance (SF 86) in December 2000 and deliberately omitted information about her marijuana use and alcohol consumption since she knew it would adversely affect her employment prospects. No mitigating conditions are applicable. Clearance is denied.

05/12/2005

In general, a party's failure to raise evidentiary issues before an Administrative Judge in a timely, reasonable manner can result in the loss or waiver of important rights. However, there may situations where a party may not be able to raise evidentiary issues in a timely manner before a Judge on the hearing level. The Board has to decide, on a case by case basis, whether the party could reasonably have been expected to raise the evidentiary issue before the Judge at the hearing level. There is sufficient reason to remand this case to the Judge to determine whether Applicant was denied the opportunity to have her response to the File of Relevant Material considered. Adverse decision remanded with instructions.

05/12/2005

Applicant is a logistics specialist for a defense contractor. She accumulated delinquent debts starting in 1994, including two debts related to car repossessions. After submitting a security clearance application and being interviewed by security investigators, Applicant started to pay some of her delinquent debts. The day after receiving the SOR, Applicant used her savings and money borrowed from her mother to pay off almost all her small delinquent debts but did not satisfy her larger debts. Applicant did not initiate a good-faith effort to pay past due creditors or satisfy debt. She deliberately did not include a car repossession on her security clearance application. Applicant did not mitigate security concerns under Guidelines F and E. Clearance is denied.

05/12/2005

Applicant is a utility technician for a defense contractor. In 1999, Applicant's debts were discharged in bankruptcy. She continued to accumulate delinquent debt, and she again petitioned for discharge in bankruptcy in January 2004. She acknowledged delinquent debts, but did not provide information to mitigate the security concerns for financial considerations. Applicant deliberately did not include a vehicle repossession in response to a question on her security clearance application. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns under Guidelines F and E. Clearance is denied.

05/12/2005

The security concerns over Applicant's financial difficulties and personal conduct are either refuted by lack of intent to make false statements to the government, or mitigated by positive changes in personal lifestyle, such as more stable marital circumstances and a solid employment record. Clearance is granted.

05/11/2005

Security concerns persist over personal conduct of Applicant, who has a history of nine separate employment terminations or departures under unfavorable circumstances between July 1995 and June 2002. He has not mitigated concerns over his reliability, trustworthiness, and willingness to comply with rules and regulations. Clearance is denied.

05/11/2005

Applicant, a native of Taiwan and a U.S. citizen since 1990, failed to successfully mitigate the security concerns of foreign influence and foreign preference. Clearance is denied.

05/11/2005

Applicant has not shown a good-faith effort to resolve his financial problems, which includes both federal and state tax liens for unpaid income taxes not filed for tax years 1996 and 2001. The federal tax lien totals $11,898; the state tax lien totals $1,439. No evidence was offered as proof that he filed his past due tax returns or paid the outstanding tax liens. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations and Guideline E, personal conduct. It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

05/11/2005

Applicant is an aircraft structural technician for a defense contractor. His self-owned business and marriage failed about the same time. There were delinquent debts from both. He paid off and satisfied most of the past due debts by working two jobs, refinancing his home, and using a credit counseling service. He is still paying some of the debt through the credit counseling service. Applicant omitted some of his delinquent debts past due over 180 days from his security clearance application and admitted to security investigators he deliberately omitted the debts. This was an isolated incident that he corrected voluntarily. Applicant successfully mitigated security concerns under Guidelines F and E. Clearance is granted.

05/11/2005

Applicant is a 45- year-old software engineer working for a government contractor. He was arrested in 1990 for Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest, and in 1991 for Trespassing. In 2000, he was arrested and found guilty of Deadly Conduct and Criminal Mischief based on two separate incidents of aggressive driving. Applicant satisfied the courts' judgments, including attendance in an Anger Management class. In 2001, Applicant, on his own initiative, additionally sought and completed behavioral counseling. Applicant's successful rehabilitation and the age of the arrests mitigate security concerns. Clearance is granted.

05/11/2005

After a successful 15-year career as a chemical engineer for a beauty products manufacturer, Applicant decided to venture out as a small businessman and opened two fast food restaurants. Both restaurants failed prompting him to file bankruptcy. During the four years since filing bankruptcy, Applicant has pursued a successful career as a software engineer for a defense contractor and has fully mitigated past financial considerations concerns. Clearance is granted.

05/11/2005

The Applicant, a retired Army Colonel, has addressed all of the alleged past due debts. This indebtedness was the result a condition largely beyond his control, about $100,000 of unexpected medical and related expenses. The Applicant made an honest "mistake" in not listing his past due debts in answer to question 38 on his May 2000 Security Clearance Application (SCA). The Government, however, already knew of the Applicant's past due debts as they were the subject of a February 1999 Letter of Intent (LOI). In answer to question 32 on his May 2000 SCA, the Applicant did not divulge that his clearance had been suspended as a result of the LOI. He was unaware it had been suspended, as he left this employment 11 days prior to the alleged suspension. His veracity is corroborated by three witnesses. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

05/11/2005

Whether an applicant's financial interest in a foreign country is "substantial" for purposes of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 5 does not turn simply on the dollar amount of that financial interest. Rather, the Administrative Judge must consider the dollar amount of the applicant's foreign financial interest and its value in comparison to the applicant's financial interests in the United States, and any other record evidence concerning the facts and circumstances of the applicant's foreign financial interests and foreign ties. Given the record evidence, the Judge did not err in finding Applicant engaged in fraudulent conduct that constituted a pattern of dishonesty and rule violations. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/11/2005

In 1993, Applicant was arrested and convicted of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). He was required to attend a DWI course which he did not complete until 2004. He made a number of statements indicating the matter had been resolved, even though a warrant was still outstanding. The record evidence mitigates the negative security implications stemming from the DWI and his statements. Clearance is granted.

05/10/2005

This 26-year-old computer technician used and purchased marijuana, LSD, and Ecstacy between 1997 and April 2001. He lied about his drug use on his January 2002 security clearance application (SF 86), thereby violating 10 U.S.C. 1001, a felony. Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied

05/10/2005

Applicant was arrested and convicted in 1996 of felony theft from an auto and given a deferred conviction and sentence pending completion of probation, community service and payment of fees and restitution. Confusion on the part of his counsel and change in policy of the district attorney's office led him to conclude that the record had been expunged and he failed to report the events on his SF 86 in 2002 and on an application for private employment in 2000. Failure to report was not deliberate and the conviction is mitigated by passage of time. Clearance in granted.

05/10/2005

The Board need not review an Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions that have not been challenged on appeal. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge's own findings of fact and the plain language of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1, the Judge failed to articulate a rational basis for applying that mitigating condition. The Judge's analysis under Guideline B is arbitrary and capricious and not sustainable. Department Counsel failed to demonstrate the Judge's analysis under Guideline C is erroneous. Favorable decision reversed.

05/09/2005

Applicant, born in South Korea, became a United States citizen in 1998. His wife also became a U.S. citizen, and they have three children, who are citizens of the United States. Applicant's parents and in-laws are citizens and residents of South Korea. His parents plan to move permanently to the United States. His sisters are U. S. citizens, who reside in South Korea. None of these family members belong to, or are active with any government agency of South Korea. They are not in a position to be exploited by South Korea in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to these family members and his loyalty to the United States. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted.

05/09/2005

Applicant's father, mother, brother and sisters are citizens and residents of Vietnam. None of them works for or is associated with the Government of Vietnam. He has limited contact with his parents and no regular contact with his siblings. They are not in a position to be exploited by Vietnam in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to these family members and his loyalty to the United States. Applicant has given some money to his parents in Vietnam, but the amount is not significant. Applicant's strong attachment to the United States and minimal ties to Vietnam makes it unlikely that he would respond favorably to any efforts to act against United States interests. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted.

5/09/2005

This 38-year-old employee of a defense contractor used cocaine on an average of two or three times a month between May 2000 and July 2003. He tested positive for cocaine a company random drug test in May 2002 and participated in a rehabilitation program. He used cocaine at least two more times after May 2002, with his last use in July 2003. He lied about his drug use on his security clearance application and in his first interview with an agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS). Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied.

05/09/2005

Applicant is a 43-year old man born in Taiwan. Since 1999, he is a naturalized U.S. citizen. He currently works as a lead senior engineer for a defense contractor and has been there since 2001. His wife is a permanent resident of the U.S. and a citizen of Taiwan; their son is a U.S. citizen and resident. None of Applicant's family in Taiwan are involved with the government. He is not vulnerable to foreign influence because of his strong attachment to the U.S. and because his family in Taiwan is not in a position to be exploited in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to these family members and his loyalty to the U.S. His extensive personal, professional, and economic ties to the U.S. mitigate possible security concerns. Clearance is granted.

05/09/2005

Applicant has a history of three alcohol-related incidents over a seven-year period between 1994 and 2001 and continued drinking without any documented diagnosis or prognosis of his condition. His restorative efforts to date, while encouraging, are insufficient to enable safe predictive assessments about his ability to avoid recurrence in the foreseeable future. Security concerns are raised, too, over Applicant's determined deliberate omission of a 1995 criminal offense from his security clearance application. Applicant fails to fully mitigate government security concerns about his alcohol offenses and arrest omission as well. Clearance is denied.

05/09/2005

Applicant is a diagnosed alcoholic with a history of relapses after treatment, who abused alcohol and cocaine as recently as summer 2004. He has been arrested on several occasions for various offenses related to alcohol, including drunk driving in 1997 and 2001, and did not fully disclose those arrests or court-ordered alcohol counseling on his March 2002 security clearance application. Nor did he report his involvement with cocaine until his third interview with a Defense Security Service special agent. Alcohol consumption, criminal conduct, and personal conduct concerns persist. Clearance is denied.

05/09/2005

Applicant fell behind on five debts totaling $9,580.00 after going through a separation and divorce. He did little to resolve his debts during the nine years from his divorce's end to the date of his hearing. All five debts remain unresolved. Clearance is denied.

05/06/2005

Applicant has successfully mitigated the foreign influence security concern, as the record evidence demonstrates that his connections to China are rather minimal or pro forma or both when compared with his significant family, professional, and financial connections to the U.S. Clearance is granted.

05/06/2005

Applicant falsified a January 2002 security clearance questionnaire (SF 86) by deliberately omitting his 1997 arrest for driving under the influence of a controlled substance and his use of marijuana. During a subject interview with a Defense Security Service (DSS) agent in July 2002, Applicant deliberately falsified facts and circumstances of his 1997 arrest and of his use of marijuana. He has failed to mitigate the resulting security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline J (criminal conduct). Clearance is denied.

05/05/2005

Applicant has a history of federal and state filing failures associated with tax years 1998 through 2002. While he is able to document his recent filing of his federal returns for tax years 2000 through 2003, he provides no documentation of his filing federal returns for tax years 1998 and 1999 (as he claims he did) or his state returns for the tax years of 1998 through 2002. Besides his failure to file timely federal and state tax returns, Applicant has accumulated large tax accruals for the tax years in question, in addition to a consumer debt identified in his credit report, which he has failed to address in any documented way. Applicant fails to mitigate security concerns associated with his accumulated tax and consumer debts. Clearance is denied.

05/05/2005

Applicant began having financial problems in 1996/97 due to a divorce. While she has a record of timely repayment of her current monthly expenses, two delinquent accounts totaling more than $12,000 are unresolved with little prospect of settlement or satisfaction in the foreseeable future. Financial considerations concerns persist, but personal conduct concerns are resolved in her favor where she did not knowingly falsify her security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

05/05/2005

Considering the record evidence as a whole, and giving due deference to the Administrative Judge's assessment of the credibility of Applicant's testimony, the Board concludes the Judge's findings of falsification are sustainable. Deliberate falsifications have negative security implications that are independent from the security implications of the conduct that an applicant tries to conceal. The federal government does not have to wait until an applicant commits a security violation before it can deny or revoke access to classified information. The possibility that an unfavorable decision could adversely affect Applicant's employment situation and career is not relevant to the Judge's evaluation of the security significance of Applicant's falsifications. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/05/2005

Applicant has been married for 30 years to an Iranian who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Iran. She has a claim against the government of Iran for $15-$20 million for property seized from her family when the Shah fell from power in 1977. She has traveled to Iran six times in the past nine years to press the claims. Financial involvement is significant and not mitigated. Applicant's wife has two half sisters in Iran with whom she has little contact and that allegation is mitigated. Applicant mitigated his failure to report certain financial actions and delinquencies on his SF 86 through a misunderstanding but voluntarily detailed them in two subsequent investigative reports. Clearance denied.

05/05/2005

Applicant failed to mitigated security concerns over foreign influence raised because of his close ties to his parents and sister and her family who are citizens of the People's Republic of China ("China") and reside there. Also, these relatives and Applicant himself had positions with the government of China which heightens the potential for foreign influence by coercive or non-coercive means and raises security concerns. In addition, his former wife and one son are citizens of China, but live in the U.S. Thus, it remains possible that foreign pressure on his relatives could create a situation that could result in the compromise of classified information. Clearance is denied.

05/05/2005

Applicant was charged with various minor crimes between 1994 and 1998. He omitted some of the arrests from his March 2002 security questionnaire (SF 86). Applicant also falsely stated in that SF 86 and on a resume he gave his employer that he holds a masters degree. The record supports a finding that Applicant's omissions were deliberate falsifications. As such, they were also in violation of §18 U.S.C. 1001. Clearance is denied.

05/05/2005

DOHA proceedings are civil in nature and the ineffective assistance of counsel doctrine does not apply to them. The Administrative Judge had to consider Applicant's testimony and character reference letters, but the Judge was not bound to accept that evidence at face value and could weigh it in making his findings of fact. Applicant has not shown that the Judge's findings and conclusions are arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/04/2005

When she was 25 years old, Applicant falsified her security clearance application by deliberately denying she had used drugs illegally or had received mental health treatment. Applicant mitigated personal conduct and criminal conduct security concerns by confession, remorse, and rehabilitation. Clearance is granted.

05/04/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. There is no right to have the record kept open indefinitely so that a party can continuously submit new evidence for consideration in a case. Absent a showing that a party was denied the opportunity to present evidence for the Administrative Judge to consider, there is no right to have a case remanded so that a party can have another opportunity to submit evidence for the Judge to consider. Applicant's proffer of new evidence on appeal does not demonstrate the Judge committed factual or legal error. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/04/2005

From 1999 to at least January 2004, Applicant consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication. Between 1999 and 2001, Applicant was convicted of three alcohol-related offenses. In December 2001, when Applicant completed his security clearance application, Standard Form (SF) 86, he failed to list two of his alcohol-related arrests and convictions. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from Applicant's alcohol consumption, personal conduct, and criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

05/04/2005

Applicant is a self-employed food service consultant for a defense contractor. She has delinquent debts, including for federal and state taxes, she has not satisfied. Applicant did not file federal tax returns for two years which is a criminal offense under a federal statute. Applicant deliberately did not provide correct answers to questions on her security clearance application concerning debts past due over 180 days in the last seven years and currently past due over 90 days. Clearance is denied.

05/04/2005

Applicant is a naturalized United States citizen whose mother and father reside in the People's Republic of China. He has frequent telephone contact with them, and he, his wife, and his children visit them in China annually. He has failed to mitigate the foreign influence security concerns that result from his family ties to China. Clearance is denied.

05/04/2005

Applicant is a 28 year old divorced father. He has worked for a federal contractor since 1998. Prior to 2001, Applicant's then wife was emotionally unstable and would often make irrational decisions. She refused to take her medications that would help her. During this time, Applicant's wife would spend their money frivolously. Applicant's attempts to control her spending were unsuccessful. Applicant and his wife divorced in 2002. Applicant has successfully repaid and resolved most of the delinquent debts and has a solid and consistent payment history with the others. Applicant has successfully mitigated the security concern raised under Guideline F, financial considerations. Clearance is granted.

05/04/2005

Given the totality of the record evidence, the Administrative Judge had a rational basis for concluding the facts and circumstances of Applicant's family ties with Russia raised security concerns under Guideline B. The Judge correctly held that Applicant had the burden of presenting evidence to extenuate, mitigate, or otherwise overcome the security concerns raised by the facts and circumstances of his family ties with Russia. Applicant has not shown that the Judge erred by not applying Foreign Influence Mitigating Conditions 1, 4 and 5. Decisions by Hearing Office Judges in other DOHA cases are not legally binding precedent. Adverse decision affirmed.

05/04/2005

Applicant was arrest and convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drug (DUIA) in 1992, 1995, and 2001. He was also arrested or cited for knowingly driving in violation of suspended or revoked privilege in twice in 1994 and in 2001.When he completed a Security Clearance Questionnaire, Standard Form (SF) 86, he failed to list outstanding warrants and failed to list all of his arrests. He also falsified information in a signed, sworn statement. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from Applicant's alcohol consumption and falsifications. Clearance is denied.

05/03/2005

Applicant retained his Slovak passport after he became a U.S. citizen, and has not surrendered it, because it "is my only proof of Slovak citizenship, and is key to any potential return to Slovakia when I retire." Although Applicant mitigated foreign influence security concerns resulting from the presence of members of his family in Slovakia and his wife's family in Poland, he failed to mitigate foreign preference security concerns. Clearance is denied.

05/03/2005

Applicant has six siblings who are citizens and residents of the Republic of Sudan. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

05/02/2005

In June 2002, Applicant, an American citizen by birth, married a Russian citizen with whom he still lives. Applicant's wife maintains regular contact with her mother, father, and brother, who are all Russian citizens and still live there. Her father is a retired Russian military officer and her brother still serves as a colonel in the Russian army. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline B arising from his ties of affection with foreign citizens. Clearance is denied.

05/02/2005

Applicant has failed to rebut or overcome the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. Given the Judge's sustainable findings of fact, the Judge's application of the Adjudicative Guidelines is sustainable under Guidelines B, E, and J. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/29/2005

Applicant, a native of the Republic of Korea (South Korea), immigrated to the United States (U.S.) With his family members in 1985. Since becoming a naturalized citizen in February 1998, Applicant has traveled to South Korea about 15 times, with seven of the trips business-related. Applicant is married to a South Korean citizen, and his in-laws are South Korean resident citizens. There is little risk of undue foreign influence where those foreign citizens to whom Applicant is bound by close ties of affection and/or obligation are not agents of a foreign government and are not in a position to be exploited. Clearance is granted.

04/29/2005

The Applicant's last act of Criminal Conduct occurred nearly five years ago. He was found guilty of Driving Under the Influence (DUI). He no longer consumes alcohol. The Applicant's past Criminal Conduct is not recent. When the Applicant executed his Security Clearance Application (SCA) in November of 2002, he disclosed his most recent "Felony Offense," and his most recent alcohol related offense. He did not disclose any back child support payments, as he thought he was current in paying his child support. There was no wilful falsification. Mitigation is also shown as to the Applicant's past Criminal Conduct. Clearance is granted.

04/29/2005

Applicant is a computer software engineer for a defense contractor. She was born in Russia and received her undergraduate education there. Applicant married a United States citizen, became a United States citizen, and resides in the United States with her husband and child. Her father and brother are citizens of and reside in Ukraine. She talks to them infrequently by phone and last saw them on a trip in July 2003. Another brother is a citizen of and resides in Russia. She last saw him in July 2003 but speaks to him monthly by phone because she is assisting him to enter the United States. Her mother, a Russian citizen but a United States permanent resident alien, resides with Applicant in the United States. Applicant has mitigated security concerns for foreign influence based on immediate family members. Clearance is granted.

04/29/2005

Applicant used marijuana on a single occasion in 2002 and hedged on whether he might use it in the future were it offered in a social situation. Absent documentation in the record of Applicant's using illegal drugs of any kind before or after his only identified use of illegal drugs (viz., marijuana in 2002), Applicant is credited with successful mitigation of his isolated marijuana use. Clearance is granted.

04/29/2005

Security clearance concerns arose after Applicant filed several bankruptcies and was delinquent on two debts. Applicant experienced a period of unemployment as well as marital problems, which severely impacted his ability to remain current on his debts. He has since reconciled with his wife, stabilized his income, and has a solid two-year history of remaining current on his chapter 13 payment plan. Applicant has resolved past debts and demonstrated a track record committed to overcoming past financial problems. He has successfully mitigated security concerns pertaining to his financial situation. Clearance is granted.

04/29/2005

Applicant and her spouse were both born in the People's Republic of China (PRC) and became naturalized citizens. Applicant's elderly parents and older sister are citizens and residents of the PRC. Her brother is a naturalized U.S. citizen who works in the PRC for a European furniture company. The security concern based on foreign influence is not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

04/29/2005

Applicant's drug involvement is mitigated because his two-time use in February 2002 was isolated and occurred after more than 19 years of being drug free. Conversely, Applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to find in his favor under the personal conduct and criminal conduct guidelines or the whole person concept. Applicant's pattern of deliberate falsifications demonstrates poor judgment and unreliability that has not been mitigated. Clearance is denied.

04/29/2005

Applicant has a history of use of marijuana that he omitted, along with his driving under the influence (DuI) arrest when executing his security clearance application in 2001. Applicant's concealment of his marijuana use and DuI arrest is not mitigated by any showing of a prompt, good faith correction under any of the pertinent mitigation conditions of the Adjudication Guidelines for personal conduct and raises continuing security concerns about Applicant's judgment and reliability. Clearance is denied.

04/29/2005

Applicant has a history of incurred delinquent debts between 1998 and 2002, two of which resulted in unsatisfied judgments. They exceed $49,000.00. Her delinquent debts have not been addressed despite expressed commitments to do so with her available resources. Applicant intentionally omitted her delinquent debts when executing her security clearance application in 2001. Her concealment of her delinquent debts is not mitigated by any showing of a prompt, good faith correction under any of the pertinent mitigation guidelines and raises continuing security concerns about Applicant's judgment and reliability. Clearance is denied.

04/29/2005

Applicant mitigated security concerns over his minimal use of marijuana from 1997 to 1999 when he had access to classified information as he subsequently disclosed this use and made positive changes in his life style. He thus established his intent not to abuse any drugs in the future by his responsible conduct at work demonstrated by his excellent evaluations and references. Since he abstained from all other drug use since 1985, he also mitigated those concerns as his drug involvement has not been recent. While personal conduct concerns were alleged over his failure to detail this earlier drug use on a 1991 security form, that question on drug use required a disclosure only for any drugs used within the past five years. Applicant's "no" answer was truthful as had stopped using drugs in 1985. Clearance is granted.

04/29/2005

Applicant was twice convicted of drinking driving related offenses in 1984 and 1997. Part of the sentence following his second conviction required him to attend an outpatient alcohol treatment program, which he did from November 1998 to April 1999. He stopped drinking for six to eight months after completing this program and began drinking again. In June 2003, he self-referred to an intensive outpatient alcohol treatment program and has been alcohol free for one year. Additionally, he has held a top secret clearance for 25 years while making substantial and significant contributions to the defense industry. He has successfully mitigated security concerns pertaining to past alcohol consumption. Clearance is granted.

04/29/2005

Applicant has failed to mitigate four falsifications on his SF 86 pertaining to his criminal record, marijuana use, and a tax lien. Although his forgery conviction and firearms arrest occurred over 12 years ago, his falsifications constitute recent criminal conduct as well as raising personal conduct concerns. Clearance is denied.

04/28/2005

Considering the record as a whole, the Board concludes that the Administrative Judge's application of Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition 6 and the Judge's failure to apply Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1 constitute harmless errors. Applicant has not rebutted or overcome the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. There is sufficient record evidence to support the Judge's conclusion that Applicant's conduct raises security concerns. The fact that Greece is not hostile to the United States is not dispositive for purposes of Guideline B. The United States has a compelling interest in protecting and safeguarding classified information for any person, organization, or country that is not authorized to have access to it, regardless of whether that person, organization, or country has interests inimical to the United States. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/28/2005

This 58-year-old technician was born in Cuba in 1946 and came to the U.S. in 1994, at age 48, and began working for a U.S. company. He became a U.S. citizen in 2000. He is married to a Cuban-born naturalized U.S. citizen and has two grown sons (in their 30s). One son has recently become a U.S. citizen and the other son has begun the citizenship process. In 2000, Applicant applied for the admission to the U.S. of his 33-year- old daughter and four grandchildren, all still living in Cuba. Applicant recently surrendered his Cuban passport and no longer travels to Cuba. Applicant has failed to establish that there is no undue risk caused b the continuing presence in Cuba of his close family members. Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied.

04/28/2005

There is a rebuttable presumption that government officials carry out their duties in good faith, and a party seeking to rebut or overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of presenting clear evidence to the contrary. Applicant's strong disagreements with the Administrative Judge's findings of fact and conclusions do not rebut or overcome the presumption that the Judge carried out his duties in good faith. The material factual findings about Applicant's finances that were challenged on appeal are sustainable. Although it is legally permissible for an applicant to seek relief under federal bankruptcy law, the legality of such conduct does not immunize an applicant's history of financial difficulties from being considered for its security significance. The Judge's findings of falsification reflect a legally permissible interpretation of the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/27/2005

Applicant is a computer system analyst for a defense contractor. He was arrested for the criminal offenses of burglary, assault, domestic violence, and speeding. The burglary arrest was over 15 years ago when Applicant was a teenager. Applicant is divorced and not in the situation for domestic violence problems. There are no traffic offense for five years and there are clear indications of positive behavioral changes. He had delinquent debts that were either paid off or satisfied in bankruptcy. He did not deliberately answer two questions incorrectly on his security clearance application. Applicant mitigated all security concerns. Clearance is granted.

04/27/2005

Applicant was terminated from his job as a retail sales associate in February 2000 for helping a coworker remove memory from a computer and for taking computer disks, items valued at approximately $500. Personal conduct concerns persist despite his immaturity at the time of the incident as he has not been candid with the government about his involvement. Misuse of information technology systems does not apply where the conduct involved theft of computer components rather than illegal or unauthorized tampering with an information technology system. Clearance is denied.

04/27/2005

Applicant, an Israeli born, former dual citizen of Israel and the United States, has fulfilled the requirements of the Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence, dated August 16, 2000, (Money Memorandum) by returning his Israeli passport to the Israeli Government. Additionally, he has renounced his Israeli citizenship. Neither Applicant's wife and children, who are dual United States and Israeli citizens, nor his family members, who are citizens and residents of Israel, are in a position to be exploited by Israel in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to these family members and his loyalty to the United States. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted.

04/27/2005

Applicant is a welder for a defense contractor. He petitioned and approved for a Chapter 13 payment plan in bankruptcy in 1998. He was unable to make the required payments because of injuries from an automobile accident and the payment plan was dismissed. Applicant received a settlement from the accident but did not use the resources to pay any of his debts. He continued to accumulate debts. Applicant has recently paid off some but not all of his delinquent debts. The payments made on some debts are below the minimum amount needed to pay them, and they continue to grow. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for financial considerations. Clearance is denied.

04/27/2005

Applicant is a 41-year-old software engineer employed by a defense contractor. Both she and her husband were born in Taiwan, but are now naturalized U.S. citizens residing with their children in a major American metropolitan area. Applicant's mother-in-law, a citizen of Taiwan, resides with Applicant and her family. Applicant also keep regular contact with her own parents, who, like her brother and sister, reside in, and are citizens of, Taiwan. Applicant failed to introduce any mitigating or explanatory evidence with regard to her family members, her relationships with them, or their contact. Consequentially, Applicant failed to meet her burden. Clearance is denied.

04/27/2005

Applicant is a truck driver for a defense contractor with a security clearance for over 10 years. He had delinquent debts based on judgments, car loans, personal loans, and credit cards. He paid off and satisfied most of these delinquent debts. He has been working with a credit counseling agency for over 6 months to satisfy the remaining two debts. He has sufficient monthly income to continue to pay off these debts. Applicant did not list two judgments in responding to a question on the security clearance application. Applicant did not know of the judgments nor did he understand the nature and extent of judgments. He did not deliberately conceal the judgments on the security clearance application. Clearance is granted.

04/27/2005

Applicant is a senior computer systems analyst for a defense contractor. He accumulated delinquent debts when he was married and on active military duty. He is now divorced and has either satisfied or otherwise resolved the debts. He has mitigated security concerns for Financial Considerations. Clearance is granted.

04/27/2005

Applicant began having financial problems in the late 1990s while living apart from his family due to employment demands. He resolved most of his delinquent debts in September 2000 by refinancing his home. There is no indication he intended to provide false or misleading information in the security clearance application he submitted in February 2001. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns that existed in this case. Clearance is granted.

04/27/2005

Applicant is one of many boat people who left Vietnam after the collapse of South Vietnam in 1975. He is a 43-year-old man who, at the age of 16, fled Vietnam in 1977. He was allowed to immigrate to the U.S. as a refugee and he has since obtained a college education, registered for the selective service, and he is now a U.S. citizen. He is employed as a computer programmer for a large defense contractor. Applicant's father and eight siblings are resident citizens of Vietnam. Based on the record evidence as a whole, Applicant has successfully mitigated the security concern of foreign influence based on his family ties to Vietnam. Clearance is granted.

04/27/2005

Applicant is a 54 year-old general clerk working for a defense contractor. He fled Cambodia in 1975 and emigrated with his family to the United States. Applicant, his mother, elder half-sister, two sisters, two brothers, and his wife are all naturalized United States citizens residing in the same region of the United States. Applicant's only remaining Cambodian contact is a half-sister of whom he did not know for part of his life. This half-sister has traveled to the United States on a number of occasions and they maintain telephonic contact. Applicant mitigated security concerns and it was found that his communication with this half-sister does not make him vulnerable to foreign influence. Clearance is granted.

04/27/2005

The Board need not address claims of error that are not material. As a general proposition, an applicant is collaterally estopped from denying he or she engaged in conduct that underlies a felony conviction, regardless of whether the conviction is based on a guilty plea or not. The Board need not decide whether Applicant's case falls under a possible exception to the general rule concerning collateral estoppel. Even assuming, solely for purposes of deciding this appeal, that Applicant was not collaterally estopped from contending he is innocent of the criminal conduct for which he was convicted, there is sufficient record evidence to support the Judge's finding that Applicant engaged in sexual misconduct with his minor daughter. The Judge's findings about Applicant's sexual misconduct provide a rational basis for his unfavorable security clearance decision even though there is no evidence that Applicant committed any security violation. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/27/2005

Applicant was convicted of felony scheme to defraud in 1996 for his conduct in the mid-1980s as vice president of an investment company that engaged in illegal sales practices, including failing to inform clients of commissions and providing unreasonably high projections of investments' future worth. After various appeals, his conviction was upheld and he was sentenced in July 2001 to a conditional discharge with $2,237,300 in restitution, which he has sought to have discharged in bankruptcy. Criminal conduct and personal conduct concerns persist due to the absence of clear rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.

04/26/2005

The Applicant's parents, in-laws, and sister are citizens of and reside in the People's Republic of China. His parents and in-laws are retired teachers. The Applicant's sister is a medical doctor. He has petitioned for her to immigrate to the United States. The Applicant has monthly phone contact with his parents and sister. He has visited them in China in 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004. He intends no future visits to China. The Applicant came to the U.S. to pursue his Ph.D. He has about $350,000 in equity in his house. The Applicant's foreign relatives are not connected to any foreign government, and are not subject to coercion. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

04/26/2005

The Applicant has addressed, or is in the process of addressing, all of the alleged past due debts. One of the four debts has been paid, and he is making payments towards the other three alleged past due debts. I find no willful falsification here. When the Applicant executed his November 2002 Security Clearance Application (SCA), he disclosed a motor vehicle repossession, but was unaware of that the other three debts were past due. Mitigation is shown. Guidelines E and F are found for the Applicant. Clearance is granted.

04/26/2005

Applicant owes almost $16,000 for six delinquent debts. The only action to repay or otherwise resolve these accounts has been an involuntary wage garnishment on the largest of the debts - a $13,000 student loan - begun in May 2004. Appellant has failed to present sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns as expressed in Guideline F (financial considerations). Clearance is denied.

04/26/2005

The Administrative Judge had to consider the conflicting record evidence and make findings as to whether Applicant's omissions from a security clearance application were deliberate or inadvertent. The Judge's findings of falsification reflect a legally permissible interpretation of the record evidence as a whole. The Board need not review findings of fact by the Judge that have not been challenged on appeal. The Judge's unchallenged findings of fact about Applicant's financial situation provide a rational basis for the Judge's conclusion that Applicant's history of financial difficulties raises security concerns under Guideline F. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. A promise to take remedial action in the future is not the same as evidence of actual reform and rehabilitation. Applicant does not have a right to have the record in his case kept open so that he can present evidence at some future date about changes in his financial situation. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/26/2005

Applicant is 40 years old and has worked for a federal contractor since 1997. Applicant married a Russian citizen in 2002. Applicant's mother-in-law, stepfather-in-law, and sister-in-law are all citizens and residents of Russia. Applicant and his wife visit her family in Russia once a year and she stays in weekly contact with them. Applicant knowingly purchased pirated software at a Russian market, and illegally altered software to extend the free trial period. Applicant has failed to mitigate security concerns under Guideline B and Guideline E. Clearance is denied.

04/26/2005

Security concerns persist over Applicant's past drug use and purchase of marijuana. When he previously had access to classified information, he continued to use marijuana and even reported to work under the influence of marijuana in the 1979 to 1985 period when he knew such use was a violation of security policy. He continued to use from 1988 to September 2001 and also used marijuana with his teenage children. Even after he stopped using himself, he allowed marijuana use in his home in 2002. He has made positive changes, has a good work record, and has a favorable diagnosis by a credential medical professional, but it is not enough to mitigate these concerns given his earlier disregard of security policy. Clearance is denied.

04/26/2005

Applicant mitigated concern over debts incurred over several years after his separation and divorce, and from private school expenses for a step-daughter. Two erroneous judgments were entered against him and one tax lien was alleged but its existence was denied by IRS. Other debts for which he was responsible have been paid. While he omitted information in his 2001 SF 86 regarding his delinquent debts, he did not realize the extent of the delinquencies. Clearance is granted.

04/26/2005

Applicant, a 29-year-old engineer, had three criminal charges relating to or as a result of alcohol use, while a university student. The latest was in 2001. They were mitigated by passage of time and change of lifestyle. Clearance in granted.

04/26/2005

Applicant has mitigated personal conduct concerns resulting from her fraudulent use of another person's credit account on a government computer. However, she has failed to mitigate financial concerns arising from eleven delinquent debts totaling $13,497.00. Applicant has only corroborated her payoff of one $48.00 debt and a $60.00 payment on a $229.00 obligation. Clearance is denied.

04/26/2005

The Board does not re-try a case on appeal, but rather reviews the Administrative Judge's decision to determine whether either party has identified error below. Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Board concludes Applicant has not shown the Judge's interpretation of his testimony is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unreasonable. The Judge's unchallenged findings that Applicant engaged in multiple acts of falsification over a period of many years provide a rational basis for her unfavorable conclusions under Guideline E, regardless of the record evidence of Applicant's drug rehabilitation and reform. Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the record evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/25/2005

Applicant is 51 years old and has been employed by the same defense contractor for over twenty years. Applicant has held a security clearance since 1980. Applicant used marijuana from 1970 to 1972. During a stressful time in his life, Applicant resumed using marijuana from 1976 to 1979. At age 48, during a stressful time in his life, Applicant used cocaine on several occasions in a two week period. Applicant had a 1997 arrest for domestic violence that he failed to list on his security clearance questionnaire. Applicant believed because he entered and completed a diversion program and the charges were dismissed he could honestly answer no to the question. Applicant successfully mitigated the security concerns regarding Guideline E, personal conduct, but failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding Guideline H, drug abuse. Clearance is denied.

04/25/2005

Applicant is unable to successfully mitigate the security concern stemming from his history of financial problems, which are ongoing. Clearance is denied.

04/25/2005

Applicant is 35 years old, married and has two children. He is employed by a federal contractor as an optical engineer. Applicant's parents and brother are residents and citizens of India. Applicant's brother works for a government agency in India. Applicant maintains close ties with his family in India. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by Guideline B, foreign influence. Clearance denied.

04/25/2005

Applicant has a history of delinquent debts she accrued following her discharge from the military in 2000 and ensuing divorce that left her as the sole provider for her young son with negligible child support from her ex-husband. Applicant has since discharged all of her debts in bankruptcy and mitigates security concerns associated with her delinquent debts. She successfully refutes allegations of falsification of her security clearance application (SF-86) as well. Clearance is granted.

04/25/2005

Applicant failed to successfully mitigate the security concern stemming from his history of using marijuana and cocaine, as recently as February 22, 2004. In addition, he failed to mitigate the security concern based on his falsification of his security-clearance application when he deliberately omitted or concealed his past illegal drug use as well as a drug-related arrest. Clearance is denied.

04/25/2005

Applicant was born in India and came to the United States in 1968 to pursue higher education. He obtained a master's degree in Electrical Engineering in 1971, and he became a U.S. citizen in 1984. Applicant worked for defense contractors for over 20 years and successfully held a security clearance for more than 18 years. Applicant has one brother, three sisters, and a mother-in-law who are citizens and residents of India, but his contact with them is casual and infrequent. None of his relatives in India are in a position to be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could create security concerns. Applicant has a wife, child and substantial assets in the U.S. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from having relatives who are citizens and residents of India. Clearance is granted.

04/25/2005

Applicant, a native of Hong Kong, came to the U.S. to attend college in 1987. He became a U.S. naturalized citizen in September 1994. He used a Hong Kong residency card to enter Hong Kong to visit his relatives in preference to his U.S. passport until he realized it was of concern to the Department of Defense. He has no future plans to use the foreign residency card but wants to retain it in case he needs to travel to Hong Kong for an extended period. Applicant's parents, a maternal uncle from whom he borrowed $220,000, and his spouse's parents and siblings reside in Hong Kong. His father is a U.S. naturalized citizen but the other family members are citizens of Hong Kong. Foreign preference and foreign influence concerns persist because of these ties to Hong Kong. Clearance is denied.

04/25/2005

Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. The mere applicability of a specific Adjudicative Guidelines disqualifying or mitigating condition is not solely dispositive of a case. Applicant has not demonstrated the Judge erred in his application of the Adjudicative Guidelines pertaining to Guideline B (Foreign Influence). Decisions by Hearing Office Judges in other cases are not legally binding precedent that the Judge had to reconcile, follow, or distinguish in this case. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/25/2005

Applicant is 60 years old and has worked for a federal contractor since 1998. He retired from the Navy in 1991, with the rank of E-8. Applicant has three DUI convictions, in 1982, 1990 and 2002. Applicant has attended four alcohol treatment/counseling/rehabilitation programs. Applicant admitted in 1982 that he is an alcoholic. Applicant continues to drink alcohol. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding Guideline G, alcohol consumption. Clearance is denied.

04/25/2005

Applicant is a 37-year-old software engineer for a defense contractor. At his previous job, Applicant conducted a test, without authorization, on a co-worker's computer that caused the computer to crash. Applicant failed to advise his supervisor or co-worker that he was conducting the test. He knew at the time that if the test was successful, it would crash the computer. Applicant did not immediately notify either the supervisor or co-worker after the computer crashed. Applicant made prank phone calls to the same co-worker. Applicant mitigated Guideline M, pertaining to misuse of information technology systems, but failed to mitigate Guideline E, pertaining to personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

04/25/2005

Applicant is a 45-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has a history of failing to meet his financial obligations and inability to pay his debts, extending from about 1998 to the present. While many of these debts arose from circumstances beyond his control, Applicant has done nothing to attempt to resolve his debts. When completing his security clearance questionnaire in 2000, Applicant misunderstood the questions, and mistakenly denied filing for bankruptcy, or having unpaid judgments or debts over 180 or 90 days delinquent. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from his financial difficulties. Clearance is denied.

04/25/2005

Although Applicant's mother and six brothers and sisters are resident citizens of Taiwan, the foreign influence concerns are mitigated as none of her immediate family members are agents of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited in a manner that would force Applicant to choose between the family member and the U.S. The temporary Taiwan employment in 1992 was primarily for academic reasons with the findings turned over to the Taiwanese science foundation. The potential foreign influence problems raised by Applicant's four trips to Taiwan in the last eight years and her regular telephone contacts with her mother are assuaged by Applicant's cognizance of security concerns associated with foreign ties/contacts. She understands her security obligation to resist and report exploitative contacts. The bank account established for Applicant's mother does not constitute a substantial interest in Taiwan nor could it make Applicant vulnerable to foreign influence or affect her security responsibilities. Clearance is granted.

04/25/2005

Applicant is a 34-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She has a long history of failing to meet her financial obligations and inability to pay her debts, extending from 1998 to the present. When completing her security clearance questionnaire in 2001, Applicant fraudulently concealed delinquent debts. In 2002, Applicant was convicted in state court of obtaining financial aid through false pretenses. She has not shown significant progress in resolving her delinquent debts. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from her financial difficulties, criminal conduct, or personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

04/25/2005

Applicant is 46 years old and has worked for a federal contractor since 1999. Applicant learned in 2001 that her husband, who was responsible for paying the family bills, was gambling away their money. Applicant took charge of the finances, advised her husband that if they were to stay married he needed to seek help, worked overtime, and attempted to start paying off the delinquent debts. The debts were too overwhelming and they filed for bankruptcy. Since their debts were discharged in bankruptcy, Applicant is current on their bills. Applicant has successfully mitigated the security concerns regarding Guideline F, financial considerations. Clearance is granted.

04/22/2005

Because Applicant offered Applicant Exhibit A for the Administrative Judge to consider in his case, Applicant is not in a strong position to complain that the Judge erred by relying on that exhibit in making his findings of fact. Furthermore, even if the Board were to conclude that Applicant's claim of error had merit, it would not be material to the outcome of this case. Given the Judge's unchallenged findings of fact, it was not unreasonable for the Judge to conclude that Applicant had failed to follow through with his past promises to deal with his debts. Given the Judge's unchallenged findings of fact about Applicant's long history of financial difficulties, it is not material to the outcome of this case whether Applicant is unwilling or unable to pay off his outstanding debts. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/21/2005

Applicant's intentional falsification of material facts on a Security Clearance Application (SCA) precludes a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

04/21/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. There is no right to have the record kept open continuously so that a party can offer additional evidence for consideration in the case. Board does not re-try a case on appeal, but rather reviews an Administrative Judge's decision to determine whether a party has identified factual or legal error. Applicant has failed to raise any identifiable claim of error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/21/2005

Considering the record as a whole, including the documentation submitted by Applicant during the proceedings below, the Board concludes the Administrative Judge had sufficient record evidence to find that Applicant still had outstanding balances for certain debts. On appeal, the Board does not re-try a case, but rather reviews the Judge's decision to determine whether factual or legal error has been identified. It was legally permissible for the Judge to take into account Applicant's 1993 bankruptcy when evaluating her history of financial difficulties under Guideline F. Applicant did not rebut or overcome the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Applicant's disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the record evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed it in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/20/2005

The Administrative Judge's finding that Applicant falsified a security clearance application is sustainable in light of the record evidence as a whole. Applicant failed to show the Judge erred by concluding none of the Personal Conduct mitigating conditions applied. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/15/2005

Based on the recency of applicant's marijuana use, and his stated intention to continue using it, he is deemed "an unlawful user of . . . a controlled substance," and as such, is disqualified from receiving a DoD security clearance. Clearance is denied.

04/13/2005

The Applicant has either paid or is in the process of paying all of his admitted past due debts. His past due indebtedness was caused by circumstances largely beyond his control. He was mostly unemployed while attending university from 1993~1997. He also helped out with his grandmother's medical expenses. Mitigation is shown; and as such, the Applicant's clearance is granted.

04/13/2005

Applicant's long-standing financial difficulties, and his failure to execute releases when requested to do so by a Special Agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS), preclude a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

04/12/2005

There is a rebuttable presumption that government employees and officials act in good faith, and a person seeking to rebut or overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of presenting clear evidence to the contrary. Applicant failed to rebut that presumption in this case. Under the Directive, there is no authority to grant a conditional security clearance. No subordinate Executive Branch official has the authority or discretion to change an applicable Executive Order. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/12/2005

The record evidence does not support Applicant's claim that he was denied due process during the proceedings below. The Administrative Judge correctly concluded that the ASDC3I memorandum concerning foreign passports applied to Applicant's case. The Judge's adverse conclusions about Applicant's ties with immediate family members in Israel are sustainable. Although evidence that an applicant has a particular motive to falsify may be probative of an intent to falsify, there is no legal requirement that a particular motive to falsify be established to prove an applicant had the intent to falsify. The Judge's application of an erroneous standard about the burden of proof concerning the falsification allegation in this case was harmless and does not warrant remand. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/11/2005

Applicant is a 50 year-old male working for a defense contractor. In 1999, he found an Internet website with banners and pop-ups containing what appeared to be child pornography. He later returned to the site, then reported its content to his Internet provider and to a link on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's web page. Applicant visited the website a third and final time to ascertain whether the site had been altered or removed. In 2001, prior to a polygraph exam for access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI), he reported that he had been exposed to the site; SCI access was denied owing to a determination that his actions constituted criminal conduct, rather than, as here, a question of sexual behavior. Applicant mitigated security concerns. Clearance is granted.

04/11/2005

Given the Administrative Judge's findings of fact, the Judge's conclusions that Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1 and Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 3 applied were not warranted. Department Counsel's claims of error concerning the Judge's favorable conclusions under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) are not persuasive. Favorable decision reversed.

04/11/2005

Applicant is a 44 year-old male who has been employed by a defense contractor since 1986. While on assignment in the Republic of Korea (Korea) in 1996, Applicant married a Korean citizen. Although she subsequently joined him in the United States, registered as an alien, and commenced the process toward gaining United States citizenship, her parents and brother remain citizens and residents of Korea. Applicant and his wife have given his mother-in-law money to satisfy her mortgage and he extended a loan to his brother-in-law. In 2001, Applicant was reassigned to Korea. He purchased an apartment there to avoid excessive rents and intends to sell that property upon their return in the summer of 2005. Applicant mitigated security concerns. Clearance is granted.

04/11/2005

Applicant's spouse, a native of Hong Kong, became a United States naturalized citizen in September 2004. In October 2004, she renounced her British National Overseas status and surrendered her expired foreign passports. While her parents are Hong Kong residents with foreign citizenship (mother a Hong Kong-Chinese citizen and father with British National Overseas status), there is little risk of undue foreign influence as her parents are both retired, have never been agents of a foreign government, and are not likely to be exploited. Clearance is granted.

04/11/2005

Applicant's failure to offer any explanation for his intentional falsification of material facts on a Security Clearance Application (SCA) precludes a finding that he can now be relied upon to be honest with the Government. Clearance is denied.

04/08/2005

Applicant is a 25-year-old engineer native born U.S. citizen educated in the U.S. whose parents emigrated from Lebanon. The family lived in Lebanon for four years in Israeli occupied lands when Applicant was between ages nine and thirteen. He has been back twice as an adult to visit. He has a grandmother and several aunts and uncles still living there with whom he has occasional contact. He held an entry visa for Lebanon in his U.S. passport as a result of his first trip when he was nine years old but the passport containing it has expired. Applicant has mitigated security concerns. Clearance is granted.

04/08/2005

Applicant, a 42-year-old employee of a federal contractor did sustain financial reversals due to poor health, retirement from the U. S. Navy, a period of unemployment, adoption of his wife's granddaughter, and his subsequent separation. However, his financial statements indicated an ability to repay old debts, maintain current expenses, with a surplus each month. The record contains no evidence that bills were paid even though he made assurances that they were being paid. He gave false answers on two successive security clearance questionnaires. He has not mitigated security concerns over his finances and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

04/08/2005

Applicant was born in Taiwan, and came to the United States in 1984 to pursue higher education. She became a U.S. citizen in 1998. Applicant's mother is a citizen of Taiwan, but resides permanently in the United States. Applicant's brother-in-law is a citizen of China and lives in Hong Kong, but her contact with him is casual and infrequent. All of Applicant's remaining relatives are in the United States. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from having relatives who are citizens or residents of foreign countries. Clearance is granted.

04/08/2005

Applicant's history of harassment complaints leading to company warnings and suspensions and ensuing misuse of his position as a levee district commissioner to organize group that he promised his best efforts as a commissioner to steer business their way reflects not only pattern violations of accepted rules of behavior in the workplace, but also violations of his fiducial duties as a commissioner of a public commission. His exhibited pattern of determined harassment and abuse of his fiducial position as a commissioner reflect adversely on his judgment and reliability. On the record presented, he fails to mitigate the Government's security concerns under Guideline E of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Clearance is denied.

4/08/2005

Applicant, born in the People's Republic of China (Taiwan), became a United States citizen in 1996. His wife and three children are citizens of the United States. In 1997 and 1999, Applicant used both his Taiwanese and United States passports when traveling to Taiwan. He has now surrendered his expired Taiwanese passport to the Taiwanese government. Applicant's mother, father, brother, and in-laws are citizens and residents of Taiwan. None of these family members belong to, or are active with any government agency of Taiwan. They are not in a position to be exploited by Taiwan in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to these family members and his loyalty to the United States. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted.

04/08/2005

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns posed by his family members living in Iran by demonstrating that those family members were not agents of a foreign government or so situated as to provide a pressure point on Applicant. Clearance granted.

04/08/2005

Applicant has a history of heavy consumption of alcohol. He was convicted twice of driving after consuming too much alcohol. After his 1999 conviction, Applicant lied to a physician tasked with evaluating him for a court-ordered Antabuse regimen. Applicant still believes he does not have a drinking problem. He failed to mitigate excessive alcohol consumption and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

04/08/2005

Applicant is a 65-year-old employee of a defense contractor who has been in the United States since 1964 and received a masters' degree from a U.S. university in 1966. Applicant became a U.S. citizen in 1972. He has held a security clearance since 1973 and worked for a major defense contractor for 28 years before retirement in 2000 when he was employed in his present position. Three sisters live in and are citizens of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Applicant has monthly contact by phone with one of his sisters who is single but no contact with the others. Applicant traveled twice to China in 1997 and 1998 to attend the funerals of his parents and reported both trips to his security officer. He owes no allegiance to Taiwan. Clearance is granted.

04/08/2005

Applicant became financially overextended during his final years in the U.S. Army. His wife handled the family finances while he was away performing his military duties. She failed to pay on their debts and eventually divorced Applicant. He received credit counseling and entered a payment plan with a credit counseling service and has a record of making payments. Applicant mitigated the financial security concerns raised by his financial condition. Clearance is granted.

04/07/2005

Applicant owed eight debts totaling approximately $20,000. She has paid six of the debts and is making monthly payments on the other two. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from Applicant's past finances. Clearance is granted.

04/07/2005

Applicant allowed an illegal immigrant couple to live in her residence so the woman could care for Applicant's daughter. Applicant entered into a sham marriage with the man so he could obtain U.S. citizenship. Applicant has failed to mitigate the foreign influence and related personal and criminal conduct security concerns that exist in this case. Clearance is denied.

04/07/2005

Applicant, a 42-year-old employee of a federal contractor admitted using marijuana, psilocybin, and cocaine over more than twenty years. On a security clearance application in 2000, he denied use after 1994. In a subsequent interview and polygraph in 2001, he admitted usage up to near the time of his application in 2000. He further admitted to intentionally falsifying a December 2000 security clearance application regarding his drug usage. Applicant's failure to be truthful in the past make his assertions that he is now drug free not credible. He has not mitigated security concerns over his drug involvement and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

04/07/2005

Applicant is a senior engineering analyst for a defense contractor. Applicant has four delinquent debts outstanding for a number of years. He has not made any efforts to pay the debts or make arrangements with creditors to satisfy them. Applicant has sufficient financial resources to pay the delinquent debts. Clearance is denied.

04/07/2005

Applicant owes four debts totaling approximately $16,700. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from Applicant's financial difficulties. Clearance is denied.

04/07/2005

Applicant is an electronics technician for a defense contractor. He has been arrested and convicted twice for driving while intoxicated, completed two alcohol-safety programs, and completed an outpatient alcohol-treatment program. He continues to drink alcohol to the point of impairment a few times a month. Applicant used a control substance frequently and his last use was only a year ago. Applicant has delinquent debts that he made no effort to satisfy, but has been relieved of the debts through bankruptcy. Applicant deliberately provided a false answer on his security clearance application concerning the extent of his drug use. He provided the same false information to a security agent. Clearance is denied.

04/07/2005

Applicant is a electronic maintenance and installation technician for a defense contractor. He has delinquent debts from car repossessions, tax liens, and household expenses that have not been satisfied. Applicant made little effort to satisfy his debts. He filed for bankruptcy which will relieve him of his debts. He has not made a good-faith effort to satisfy his delinquent debts and mitigate security concerns based on financial considerations. Clearance is denied.

04/07/2005

Applicant is an electronics technician for a defense contractor. He received non-judicial punishment while serving on active military duty for making two unrelated false official statements. His security clearance was revoked while on active duty partially for alcohol-related reasons. Just prior to being interviewed by a security agent in regards to his security clearance, Applicant was arrested for an alcohol-related offense. He told the security agent he had no alcohol-related arrests or incidents. On a security clearance application Applicant submitted after the arrest, he answered "no" to the question asking if he had any alcohol-related arrests. Applicant has a history of making false statements and deliberately provided false and misleading information to the government concerning alcohol-related incidents. Clearance is denied.

04/07/2005

Aware a coworker had tampered with a door alarm that was malfunctioning in July 2002, Applicant failed to report it to his employer and was not candid during his employer's investigation of the incident. He acknowledges and regrets his poor judgment in handling of the matter, which was an aberration in his otherwise long record of compliance with security practices. Clearance is granted.

04/07/2005

Given the record evidence, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Administrative Judge to conclude Applicant had not mitigated the security concerns raised by the facts and circumstances of his ties to relatives who are citizens and residents of Iran. Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. The Judge's finding of falsification is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/07/2005

Applicant's conduct since moving to the United States in 1995 has indicated a clear preference for the United States over Ethiopia. Clearance is granted.

04/06/2005

Applicant's immediate family members living in Israel do not pose an unacceptable security risk. Applicant has renounced his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport. Clearance is granted.

04/06/2005

Applicant, a native of the People's Republic of China (PRC), came to the United States (U.S.) For college in 1987, and became a U.S. naturalized citizen in December 1999. He has close relationships with his parents and siblings in the PRC, and sends his parents $500 to $1,000 annually. In February 2003, he sent his brother $56,000, the equity in his home taken out in a refinance of his mortgage, to cover his mother's medical costs in the PRC. He failed to disclose this transfer of funds during a Defense Security Service (DSS) interview, creating doubts for his personal conduct. The PRC residency and citizenship of his family members raises significant foreign influence concerns that are not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

04/06/2005

Applicant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol on three occasions; he used marijuana once in 1998/99; and he used cocaine on several occasions between 1999 and August 2002. His drug abuse only stopped when he tested positive on a random urinalysis at work. He misled a drug counselor and a Defense Security Service Special Agent about the extent of his drug use following the positive urinalysis. Although he called his wife, friends, and co-workers to testify on his behalf, their testimony clearly established that he continues to mislead them about the extent of his drug abuse. Clearance is denied.

04/06/2005

Applicant is 26 years old. He is employed by a defense contractor as a computer software engineer. The Statement of Reasons alleged foreign preference, foreign influence, and personal conduct security concerns. Applicant's current girlfriend is an illegal immigrant from Mexico, to whom he gave $1000 for smuggling more of her relatives into the U.S. He cheated on some of his college examinations and helped others do so. He deliberately failed to disclose on his 2002 security clearance application his illegal drug use and work suspension for providing alcohol to minors. Applicant mitigated the foreign preference security concern, but failed to mitigate the foreign influence and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

04/06/2005

Applicant's delay in resolving debts to several creditors from a business failure poses security concerns. To his credit he demonstrated his consistent, good-faith efforts to resolve his federal and state tax debts as soon as he found stable employment in a new field in 1998. He resolved his tax debts in full and also resolved a debt to one creditor for office supplies. He has reduced his overall debt substantially. On the other hand, he failed to establish how he intends in the future to resolve the remaining six debts totaling approximately $20,000 which raise security concerns even though he argued under the statute of

04/06/2005

An applicant's right to submit evidence for the Administrative Judge to consider in his or her case is an important one. Since Applicant submitted his response to the File of Relevant Material in a timely manner, he was entitled to have it considered in his case. Adverse decision remanded with instructions.

04/05/2005

Applicant, a 21-year-old college student, smoked marijuana once in March 2002 and several times in July 2003. He has never abused any other controlled substance and convincingly testified he will never again use marijuana. He has mitigated his drug involvement. Clearance is granted.

04/05/2005

Applicant has failed to fulfill the requirements of the Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence, dated August 16, 2000, entitled "Guidance to DoD Central Adjudication Facilities (CAF) Clarifying the Application of the Foreign Preference Adjudicative Guideline" (Money Memorandum) by refusing to return his Moroccan passport to the Moroccan Government. Additionally, he has stated that he has no intention of renouncing his Moroccan citizenship. None of Applicant's family members or friends, are involved with any government agency of Morocco. They are not in a position to be exploited in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to these family members and his loyalty to the United States. Clearance is denied.

04/05/2005

The Applicant has filed all of his delinquent Federal and State income tax returns. He suffers from severe dyslexia; and as such, depended on his, now, deceased spouse to file their income tax returns. She died as a result of alcohol abuse, and it was not until after her death that he discovered their returns had not been filed. The Applicant last used marijuana in April of 2002, three years ago, and intends no future usage. His occasional drug involvement is not recent. When the Applicant executed his Security Clearance Applications (SCAs) in 1999 and again in 2002, he answered the posited questions as to his past drug involvement truthfully and to the best of his ability. Mitigation is shown; and as such, his clearance is granted.

04/05/2005

Applicant is a 58-year-old naturalized citizen of the U.S. from Israel. Applicant works for a defense contractor and has held a security clearance since 1988. Applicant has family members who are citizens and residents of Israel that he maintains close contact with. Applicant maintains an Israeli passport and uses it when traveling to Israel. Applicant has rental property, a certificate of deposit and a joint bank account in Israel. Applicant is unwilling to renounce his Israeli citizenship or relinquish his passport. Clearance is denied.

04/05/2005

A decision by a Hearing Office Administrative Judge is not legally binding precedent that other Hearing Office Judges must follow. The application of the Adjudicative Guidelines requires the exercise of sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole. The Judge's failure to make findings of fact pertinent to the Guideline F issues of the case was error, but that error was harmless because the Judge's decision is sustainable on other grounds. The Judge's finding of falsification is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/05/2005

The absence of evidence to support the sexual assault and the lack of a criminal record results in a finding for Applicant under the criminal conduct guideline. However, Applicant's favorable evidence about his work performance since September 2002 does not satisfy his substantial burden of persuasion under the personal conduct guideline. Clearance is denied.

04/05/2005

While Applicant has immediate family members who are citizens of and reside in India, his father and brother no longer have any ties to the Indian Army. His brother now is a permanent resident of the U.S. They are not in a position to be exploited by India in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to these family members and his loyalty to the United States. Applicant has a strong interests in the United States. Further India and the U.S. have a strategic partnership. Clearance is granted.

04/05/2005

Although a Hearing Office Judge's decision can be cited as persuasive authority, a party relying on such a decision has the burden of persuading the Board to follow such a decision. No party can reasonably rely on a Hearing Office decision that seeks to contradict, or runs contrary to, current Board decisions on point. The wisdom and efficacy of the ASDC3I memorandum concerning foreign passports are not proper subjects to be litigated in DOHA proceedings. The Judge properly concluded that the ASDC3I memorandum applied to Applicant's case. Given the Judge's overall findings about Applicant's conduct and circumstances, the Judge's conclusions under Guideline C are not arbitrary or capricious. Adverse decision affirmed.

04/04/2005

Applicant is 53 years old and retired from the Navy. He has worked for a defense contractor as an electrical engineering technician since 1995. In 1996, Applicant inappropriately touched his 17 year old daughter on two occasions. He was charged, pled guilty, and was convicted of a reduced charge of sexual battery. In 2003, Applicant was charged and convicted of intentionally making an obscene display of private parts in a public place or while others were present, in this case children. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding his criminal conduct and sexual behavior concerns. Clearance is denied.

04/04/2005

Applicant's history of alcohol abuse--documented by his five alcohol-related incidents between March 1989 and January 2000--was mitigated by the passage of over four years without recurrence of alcohol-related incidents as well as positive lifestyle changes supportive of sobriety. Clearance granted.

04/04/2005

Applicant's financial problems raise security concerns because of his unwillingness to resolve his debts which total approximately $10,000 to four creditors. He failed to demonstrate a commitment to becoming financial responsible by developing a plan to resolve these debts even though he has a stable job. Clearance is denied.

04/01/2005

This 42-year-old driver for a defense contractor incurred 10 delinquent debts arising out of a business failure in the late 1990s. His financial situation has greatly improved and he had paid off six of the debts, has made significant inroads in paying off two others, and is seriously seeking to locate the last two creditors and resolve those debts with available assets. He has shown substantial financial rehabilitation. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted.

03/31/2005

Applicant is a 25 year old operations coordinator/financial analyst for a defense contractor. He had a minor alcohol-related incident while in college and two minor incidents shortly after graduation. He completed an alcohol safety action program and attended Alcoholics Anonymous while in the program. He is now married with two children and has no alcohol-related incidents in over two years. Applicant has mitigated security concerns for alcohol consumption. Clearance is granted.

03/31/2005

Applicant is a senior computer systems engineer for a defense contractor who held a security clearance while serving on active military duty. He had three minor alcohol-related arrests before entering active military duty. While on active miliary duty, he was convicted of domestic violence and alcohol-related offenses stemming from domestic problems, and he completed anger and alcohol awareness programs. He is now divorced from his wife. He was arrested for possession of an illegal substance but the charge was dismissed. He failed to list the arrest on his security clearance application because he did not know the employer requesting the information. He voluntarily told the security agents of the arrest before being confronted with the arrest. Applicant has mitigated security concerns related to criminal and personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

03/31/2005

Applicant, a 45-year-old employee of a federal contractor did sustain financial reversals due to poor real estate investments, compounded by his employer's plant closing and his subsequent transfer to another state. His financial statement indicates an ability to repay old debts, maintain current expenses, with a surplus each month. As the record contains no evidence that the debts are or are not being repaid, he has not successfully mitigated concerns over his security eligibility and suitability. A personal conduct issue was resolved in his favor. Clearance is denied.

03/31/2005

Applicant has a history of bankruptcy (discharged in 1998) followed by additionally incurred delinquent debts between 1998 and 2002 during periods of intermittent underemployment and unemployment while under a medical disability, child support burdens, and family medical expenses. The listed unpaid debts exceed $15,000.00, and are compounded by a subsequent deficiency on a vehicle repossession in 2002. His delinquent debts remain significant with still uncertain repayment prospects to warrant crediting Applicant with successful mitigation at this time. Clearance is denied.

03/31/2005

Applicant, a 44-year-old employee of a federal contractor, has sustained severe financial reversals due to a former spouse's business failure and subsequent, but unexpected, separation and divorce. In spite of several judgments against her, she has made steady progress in reducing her indebtedness and has successfully mitigated questions and doubts as to her security eligibility and suitability. Clearance is granted.

03/31/2005

Applicant, who is a U.S. naturalized citizen for almost 30 years (since 1976) and was a citizen of Egypt solely by virtue of his birth and his parents' birth in the country, mitigates security concerns associated with his past dual citizenship with Egypt and the U.S. by surrendering his expired Egyptian passport and renouncing his Egyptian citizenship. Because Applicant's immediate and extended family members who reside in Egypt are shown to pose no discernible vulnerability to pressure or coercion, foreign influence concerns are also mitigated. Applicant successfully refutes allegations of falsification of his security clearance. Clearance is granted.

03/31/2005

Applicant has failed to mitigate four of the seven delinquent debts addressed by the SOR. These outstanding debts amount to $2,511.00 but he includes no allowance to pay any of them on his most recent personal financial statement, which reflects a monthly net remainder of $24.00. Applicant has also failed to mitigate his failure to disclose the largest of these debts, $1,782.00, on his security clearance application. Clearance is denied.

03/31/2005

Applicant's continuing failure to file his income tax returns as required by law requires a denial of his clearance request. Clearance is denied.

03/30/2005

Applicant emigrated to the U.S. as a refugee from Cambodia in 1981, finished high school in the U.S., graduated from a community college, and became a U.S. citizen. Applicant's mother is a citizen of Cambodia and lives there. Since coming to the U.S., Applicant traveled to Cambodia in 1993 and most recently in 2002 to visit his mother and introduce her to his wife. He telephones his mother once a month and sends her $100.00 a month. She lives in a rural area and does not work for or have any intelligence connections with the Cambodian government. Applicant has a family in the U.S. and has invested in U.S. real estate valued at over $l million. His commitment to the U.S. mitigates any disqualification relating to his mother. Clearance granted.

03/30/2005

Considering the record evidence as a whole, and giving deference to the Administrative Judge's assessment of the credibility of Applicant's hearing testimony, the Board concludes the Judge's findings of falsification are sustainable. Falsification of a security clearance application constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. Applicant's disagreements with the SOR allegations do not demonstrate any factual or legal error by the Judge. The SOR allegations are sufficient to place Applicant on fair notice of the allegations being made against him so that he had a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations and prepare for the hearing he requested. Applicant's blanket challenge to all of the Judge's findings and conclusions lacks specificity. Board does not review the evidence de novo and make its own findings of fact. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/30/2005

While Applicant mitigated his failure to list his siblings, half-siblings, and father-in-law on his security clearance application by persuasively demonstrating it was not a deliberate falsification under Guideline E, he was unable to mitigate Guideline B security concerns related to family members who were citizens and residents of Thailand. Clearance is denied.

03/30/2005

Applicant is unable to successfully mitigate the security concern stemming from his history of delinquent child support payments resulting in an arrearage of more than $17,000.00. Clearance is denied.

03/30/2005

Applicant emigrated from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1993 and became a citizen in 2000. Her mother, three siblings, an aunt, an uncle, and five cousins, are citizens of, and living in, the PRC. She is sponsoring her mother for entry to the U.S. and has occasional telephone contact with her siblings on birthdays or anniversaries. She has little contact with her other relatives and friends in the PRC. Despite minimal contact with some relatives, she has close contact with her mother and bonds of affection with her siblings sufficient to deny clearance. Clearance denied.

03/30/2005

Applicant has a history of financial instability and has been financially overextended for several years. He falsified material facts regarding his financial delinquencies on his security clearance application. His continuing financial problems and his lack of candor about them raise serious security concerns. Clearance is denied.

03/30/2005

Applicant fell behind on his debts after going through a lengthy and costly separation from his wife of 12 years. In addition to his separation, his mother became gravely ill requiring him to take leave without pay to care for her further exacerbating his financial situation. His mother ultimately passed away and three months later his older brother passed away. Despite these events, Applicant has paid, settled, or otherwise resolved all his debts. He has successfully mitigated security concerns pertaining to his financial situation. Clearance is granted.

03/29/2005

Applicant's financial difficulties were caused, in part, by factors beyond his control. He made a good faith effort to resolve all of his past-due debts and succeeded in resolving the vast majority of them. He is now financially stable, and likely to remain that way. Clearance is granted.

03/29/2005

Applicant is a security guard for a defense contractor. She had delinquent debt resulting from low paying jobs and unemployment before working for the defense contractor. She satisfied most of these delinquent debts. She has contacted her other debtors but they have no record of her indebtedness and Applicant has not been able to arrange payment plans with them. She is willing to pay these delinquent debts if arrangements can be made with the creditors. She has either satisfied her delinquent debts or made a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors. Applicant mitigated security concerns for financial considerations. Clearance is granted.

03/29/2005

Applicant was born and raised in Russia. She immigrated to the United States in 1989 and has lived here for approximately 15 years. She received her college degree from a U.S. university. Both Applicant and her husband are naturalized U.S. citizens since 1995. Her husband is also a resident of the U.S. and their children are citizens and residents of the U.S. Applicant is not vulnerable to foreign influence because of her strong attachment to the U.S., which includes extensive personal, professional, and economic ties. Her family is not in a position to be exploited in Russia in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to her family members and her allegiance to the U.S. Clearance is granted.

03/29/2005

03/29/2005

It was legally permissible for the Administrative Judge to consider Applicant's explanation or recantation of an earlier admission in light of the record evidence as a whole and her assessment of the credibility of Applicant's testimony. Considering the record as a whole, the Judge had a sufficient basis to find that Applicant faxed, or had someone else fax, information to Israel Military Industries. Whether Applicant was reprimanded by his company in connection with the fax incident is not material to the security concerns raised by his conduct in connection with that incident. It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to take into consideration whether Applicant admits or acknowledges responsibility for his conduct. The absence of any evidence that Applicant committed a security violation is not dispositive of this case. Mishandling of sensitive, unclassified information can provide a rational basis for an unfavorable security clearance decision. The Judge failed to articulate a rational basis for her conclusion that Applicant acted reasonably by storing documents concerning a weapon system contract in his garage during a company bankruptcy without trying to ascertain from appropriate DoD officials whether there was any governmental interest in how those documents were handled, stored, or disclosed to third parties. The Judge failed to articulate a rational basis for her conclusion that Applicant did not demonstrate poor judgment by trying to contact a reputed foreign arms dealer whom Applicant believed to be under house arrest to solicit funding for a weapon system project Applicant was trying to develop and sell. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/29/2005

Applicant has a history of financial delinquency, caused in large part by excessive gambling from the late 1990s to at least 2002. While more than $60,000 in unsecured debt has been discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filed in March 2003, he and his spouse continued to gamble recreationally to at least August 2004, at a net loss of about $2,000 for the year. Applicant is now pursuing counseling for his gambling, but it is too soon to conclude that his financial problems are not likely to recur. Clearance is denied.

03/29/2005

Applicant deliberately falsified his 1990, 1995, and 1998 tax returns. He filed amended returns in 2001 after his conduct came to light during a routine polygraph examination. In 1990, Applicant falsified a final inspection certification for the refinancing of his newly-renovated home. He has failed to mitigate the resulting security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline F (financial considerations). Clearance is denied.

03/29/2005

Applicant, who is a U.S. naturalized citizen and was a citizen of Honduras solely by virtue of his birth and his parents' birth in the country, mitigates security concerns associated with his past dual citizenship with Honduras and the U.S. by surrendering his expired Honduran passport, renouncing his Honduran citizenship, and demonstrating his property interests in Honduras derive only beneficially from his wife's Honduran legal and equitable interest in her home. Because Applicant's immediate and extended family members who reside in Honduras are shown to pose no discernible vulnerability to pressure or coercion, foreign influence concerns are also mitigated. Applicant successfully refutes allegations of falsification of his security clearance. Clearance is granted.

03/29/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant cannot fairly challenge the Administrative Judge's findings of fact based on a proffer of new evidence on appeal. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge had sufficient evidence to find that Applicant was responsible for five delinquent debts. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge's findings that Applicant falsified a security clearance application are sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/29/2005

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his adverse financial history by demonstrating 1) that his financial difficulties were due to circumstances beyond his control, 2) that he had dealt responsibly with his creditors as his means permitted, 3) that the four debts alleged in the SOR were actually two debts reported on his credit report as both delinquent and reduced to judgment, and 4) that he had begun to deal with his delinquent accounts well before the SOR was issued. Clearance granted.

03/28/2005

Applicant is a former employee of a defense contractor, eligible for rehire if he obtains a security clearance. In February 2000, Applicant was laid off from his job with a federal agency where he had worked for over 12 years, making him unable to pay his debts. Thereafter, he has been able to secure only sporadic employment. For many years, Applicant has not been in a position to pay over $45,000.00 in delinquent debt. He admits he will be unable to do so until he finds full-time employment. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from his financial difficulties. Clearance is denied.

03/28/2005

Applicant's mother and sisters are citizen residents of Iraq. Although he refuted the allegations of personal and criminal conduct, he was unable to demonstrate the members of his immediate family in Iraq are not in a position to be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could force him to choose between loyalty to his family and loyalty to the U.S. Clearance is denied.

03/28/2005

Applicant is a 31-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She has a history of criminal conduct. She had five incidents resulting in arrests and convictions for a variety of offenses, including assault, driving under the influence of alcohol, possessing marijuana, driving with a suspended license, and providing false information to a police officer. Applicant falsely concealed the records of her convictions within the preceding seven years when she applied for a position of public trust. Applicant completed rehabilitation programs, changed her lifestyle, and refrained from unlawful activity for many years, mitigating the security concerns arising from her criminal history. However, Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from her false statement on her application. Applicant's eligibility for assignment to a sensitive position is denied.

03/28/2005

Applicant is 39 years old, married with two teenage sons. He works for a defense contractor as a computer image scanner operator. Applicant was arrested in 1995, 2000, and 2002 for driving under the influence of alcohol. He was convicted of the 2002 offense, and of lesser offenses in the two earlier incidents. Applicant did not mitigate the alcohol consumption security concern. Clearance is denied.

03/28/2005

Applicant has a history of delinquent debts, five in all, that exceed $8,500.00. His delinquent debts have been paid to the satisfaction of three of his five listed creditors, and the remaining two may potentially be set off against Applicant claims in two pending class action suits against his remaining two listed creditors. Applicant is successful in mitigating the Government's security concerns arising out of his reported delinquent debts. Clearance is granted.

03/28/2005

Applicant's financial problems continue to raise security concerns because of her delay in resolving over $20,000 in debts to ten creditors. Although she has recently communicated with all of her debtors, she developed a plan to pay only two out of ten long-term debts. While she had medical problems that have limited her income since 2000, she incurred the majority of these debts before she was diagnosed with her illness. On the other hand, although she failed to detail all of her debts on her 2002 security form, she rebutted personal conduct concerns and demonstrated that the omissions were not from a wilful intent to falsify. Clearance is denied.

03/28/2005

Applicant's financial irresponsibility makes him unsuitable for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

03/28/2005

Applicant is a 49-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He came to the U.S. in 1969 when he was 13 years old to go to school, and became a naturalized citizen of the U.S. in 1994. In 1997, Applicant exercised dual-citizenship by obtaining and using an Iranian passport in order to travel to Iran to visit his gravely ill father before he passed away. As he exited Iran, authorities cancelled his passport. Applicant is willing to renounce his Iranian citizenship. His mother is now a citizen and resident of the U.S.; he has no immediate family members in Iran. He has worked for a defense contractor holding a sensitive position on an interim basis for four years without adverse incident. Applicant's eligibility for assignment to a sensitive position is granted.

03/28/2005

Applicant did not timely pay local real estate taxes assessed for fiscal years 1989 to 2004 on an undeveloped parcel of land purchased with two business associates in 1986. Applicant had a responsibility to pay the taxes notwithstanding his failure to receive any financial contributions from his associates. The financial considerations concerns are mitigated by his satisfaction in August 2004 of the tax indebtedness, and his responsible handling of his other financial obligations. Clearance is granted.

03/28/2005

Applicant is a 32-year-old employee of a defense contractor working as a video teleconference technician for a military service. She has a long history of inability or unwillingness to pay her debts, extending from 1996 to the present. When completing her security clearance questionnaire, Applicant fraudulently concealed her delinquent debts and unpaid judgments. Applicant has not made significant progress in resolving her delinquent debts, which total about $40,000.00. She failed to mitigate security concerns arising from her false official statements. Clearance is denied.

03/28/2005

Applicant has failed to successfully mitigate the security concern stemming from her history of not meeting financial obligations. In addition, she has failed to mitigate the security concern based on her falsification of her security-clearance application when she deliberately omitted or concealed an arrest for assault in January 1999. Clearance is denied.

03/28/2005

Applicant's financial irresponsibility makes her unsuitable for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

03/25/2005

The Administrative Judge's findings of falsification are sustainable in light of the record evidence as a whole and the Judge's assessment of the credibility of Applicant's testimony. The factual errors identified by Applicant on appeal do not warrant remand or reversal because they are not material to the outcome of the case. Applicant has not shown that the Judge erred by deciding to not apply Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions 1 and 4. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant on appeal did not preclude the Judge from making an unfavorable security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/24/2005

This 61-year-old engineer was born in another Middle Eastern country and moved to Israel with his family at age 7. In 1974, he came to the U.S. to continue his studies, began work as an engineer, and has been here ever since. He became a U.S. citizen in 1980, married, and had a daughter. Since becoming a citizen, he has used his U.S. passport for all purposes except for one occasion in 1998, when he had to obtain an Israeli passport to gain entry to that country with his family. The one year passport is long expired. He has had minimal contacts with his family 7for half a century. He has no economic or other ties to Israel and views himself only as an American. There is minimal risk of his being approached by any of them to act improperly. He strongly avers he would report any improper contact. Mitigation has been established. Clearance is granted.

03/24/2005

Given the Administrative Judge's unchallenged findings of fact, the Judge reasonably could conclude that Applicant's ties with immediate family members in Lebanon raised security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence unless the Judge specifically states otherwise. That presumption is not rebutted merely because the appealing party can cite to record evidence to which the party contends the Judge should have given greater weight. Security concerns can be raised under Guideline B even if an applicant's family members are not connected to a foreign government. The Judge's decision is not rendered arbitrary and capricious by the possibility that an unfavorable decision will have an adverse financial effect on Applicant. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/23/2005

Applicant, a 43-year-old former agent of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA),was discharged from the agency for making false statements under oath on at least twelve occasions between 1991 and 1997. The statements related to his experience in law enforcement when he stated that he had been a state trooper whereas he was an officer in a city police department and had only worked with state troopers. The statements were in his resumes given in trials when he was testifying in drug prosecutions. Applicant's record before and after the falsifications and the fact that he has taken positive steps to eliminate the possibility of coercion, and applying the whole person rule mitigates the conduct. Clearance in granted.

03/23/2005

Applicant, a dual citizen of the U. S. and Hong Kong, is employed by a federal contractor as an associate engineer. She obtained a Hong Kong passport. Subsequently, Applicant renounced her Hong Kong citizenship and surrendered her passport to the Hong Kong government.. Her actions mitigate security concerns under Guideline C. She was able to successfully mitigate the foreign influence security concerns of Guideline B raised by her immediate family members who are citizen residents of Hong Kong. Clearance is granted.

03/23/2005

There is a rebuttable presumption that an Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence unless the Judge specifically states otherwise. Apart from that presumption, a reading of the Judge's decision shows the Judge considered the exhibits Applicant submitted after the hearing. Because there is no presumption of error below, the Board need not review the Judge's unchallenged findings and conclusions under Guideline E and Guideline F. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/23/2005

Applicant's delinquent debts were discharged under Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2004, and his financial situation has improved. Unexpected periods of unemployment and large medical expenses contributed to his financial difficulties. He is current with his obligations, his income exceeds his expenses, and he has no credit cards. These facts mitigate questions and doubts as to his security eligibility and suitability. Clearance is granted.

03/23/2005

Applicant is unable to successfully mitigate the security concerns stemming from his history of financial irresponsibility and personal conduct, which includes falsification of his security-clearance application. Clearance is denied.

03/23/2005

Applicant is a 26-year-old employee of a defense contractor who emigrated from the Republic of China (Taiwan) in 1992 with all members of her family except her father who came later and is now a U.S. citizen. She has aunts and uncles in Taiwan and a former pastor. Applicant traveled to Taiwan in 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2003. On the 2000 and 2001 trips Applicant used her Taiwan passport even though she had been issued a U.S. passport early in 2000. In 2002 her Taiwan passport was turned in. While her relatives and friend in Taiwan do not raise serious concerns, the frequency and recency of her travels especially when two were with use of a foreign passport do. Clearance is denied.

03/23/2005

Applicant has a history of financial instability and has been financially overextended for several years. While he was able to show he had paid two of his debts, his continuing financial problems raise serious security concerns. Clearance is denied.

03/23/2005

Applicant has a history of financial delinquency since the 1996/97 time frame due to overuse of credit. As of July 2004, he owes approximately $27,000 in delinquent debt. Financial considerations concerns persist where his efforts to resolve this debt have been minimal to date and he spent $2,500 on personal vacations instead of devoting the monies to his creditors. Personal conduct concerns exist due to his deliberate falsification of his security clearance application (SF 86) for failing to list his debts and his firing from two jobs in about 1999 for unacceptable conduct. Clearance is denied.

03/22/2005

British-born Applicant who has resided in the U.S. since 1997 and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2001--a dual citizen of both countries--retained his British passport after he was naturalized. He surrendered the British passport in September 2004 in compliance with the August 2000 ASD/C³I memorandum implementing a passport policy clarification. Applicant's wife is a native-born U.S. citizen, and his parents (who intend to emigrate to the U.S. to reside with Applicant) and two sons are U.K. citizens and residents (one son resides in the U.S.). The government's security concerns are mitigated by the evidence developed herein. Clearance is granted.

03/21/2005

Applicant is a computer systems operator and systems analyst for defense contractors. He came to the United States from Iran in 1974 and returned only once in 1979. He became a naturalized United States citizen in 1982. His parents are elderly and live in Iran. He brought them to the United States 4 times to live, obtained benefits for them, but they returned to live in Iran. His sister is a citizen and resident of Iran. Applicant recently married an Iranian women who he did not meet until after they were married. Applicant refused to go to Iran and was married by proxy. Applicant has not met his heavy burden to establish he is not in a position to be forced to choose between loyalty to his immediate family in Iran and his loyalty to the United States. Clearance is denied.

03/21/2005

Applicant is a senior computer applications engineer for a defense contractor. She retired from active military service and held a security clearance while on active duty. She admits to using marijuana and cocaine while holding a security clearance. She was denied access to special compartmented information by a government agency as the result of an investigation and three polygraphs concerning her drug involvement. She did not mention her drug involvement in response to questions on her security clearance application. She has not yet detailed the full extent of her drug involvement. Clearance is denied.

03/21/2005

Applicant is a library tape manager for a defense contractor. He was required to pay child support for two children but made only a few of the required payments. He contests his paternity of one of the children but he has made no effort to resolve the paternity. Applicant did not pay his federal and state taxes on time one year, but has since paid his state taxes for the year in question and has made arrangements to pay his federal taxes. He falsified his security clearance application concerning his delinquent child support. Clearance is denied.

03/21/2005

Applicant has a history of alcohol consumption concerns as a result of seven alcohol-related incidents in the 1980s and four alcohol-related incidents in the 1990s. Beginning in 1995, Applicant began tapering his drinking down until he reached total abstinence in January 2004. Additionally, he has undergone positive behavior changes supportive of sobriety. Applicant has successfully mitigated the security concerns as a result of past alcohol-related incidents. Clearance is granted.

03/21/2005

Applicant is an electronic maintenance technician employed by a defense contractor after retiring from active military duty. He had a security clearance while on active duty. Applicant had four arrests and convictions for driving while intoxicated from 1989 to 2002. His driving privileges have been suspended. He has one conviction in 2000, for driving on a suspended license. He admitted to drinking to excess on occasions from 1975 to 2002. Applicant was jailed as part of a sentence for driving while intoxicated and completed an alcohol treatment program in 2002. Since 2002, Applicant changed his drinking habits and has only had one beer on two separate occasions since that time. He has a strong family support system. He has mitigated security concerns about his alcohol consumption and his criminal conduct. Clearance is granted.

03/21/2005

Applicant drank to excess from approximately 1975 until May 2002 and was discharged from the U.S. Air Force as an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. He also was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and arrested for an alcohol-related domestic disturbance. He continues to consume alcohol and has offered no explanation or mitigating evidence. He incorrectly listed his arrest for the domestic disturbance under the wrong question on his security clearance application (SF 86). Security concerns based on falsification of the SF 86 are mitigated, but the concerns based on alcohol consumption are not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

03/21/2005

This 36-year-old mechanic, while in the Air Force, sexually molested his minor daughter over a period of years, and was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He was allowed to resign from the Air Force with an Under Other than Honorable Conditions discharge. After first admitting the sexual misconduct, he now denies it occurred, suggesting a continuing state of denial. He also has significant delinquent debts, and has done almost nothing to resolve them despite being aware of the Government's concerns over the past few years. No mitigation has been established. Clearance is denied.

03/18/2005

Applicant is a forty-three-year-old software engineer employed by a defense contractor. A Statement of Reasons was issued questioning Applicant's suitability because his mother, sister, and parents-in-law are citizens and residents of the People's Republic of China (PRC), because he maintains contact with associates in the PRC, and because he traveled to the PRC on four or more occasions since 1996. Although Applicant successfully reduced the numerosity of his trips to the PRC, he failed to address or mitigate the familial and social relationships that give rise to security concerns. Clearance is denied.

03/18/2005

Applicant clearly does not want his wife and two children to find out about his long term extramarital relationship with another woman. This fact increases his vulnerability to coercion, exploitation and duress, and makes it impossible to conclude it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

03/18/2005

This 50-year-old technician has a history of financial irresponsibility extending over more than a decade and includes more than $107,000 in child support arrearage. He has paid off some of the smaller debts but the child support debt continues to grow. Overall, he has not yet made significant inroads into his massive debt, and has not established he is on the road to financial rehabilitation. Mitigation has not been established. Clearance is denied.

03/18/2005

Applicant emigrated from Nigeria in 1988 and became a U.S. citizen in 1998. He continued to hold a Nigerian passport and use it on his only trip to Nigeria since becoming a citizen in 2002 when he also held a U.S. passport. Three days before the hearing he returned the passport to the Nigerian embassy. Applicant's mother and six siblings live in and are citizens of Nigeria. Applicant has overdue debts of at least $15,000.00. Only one large debt and the smallest debts have been resolved. Clearance is denied.

03/18/2005

There is a rebuttable presumption that an Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence unless the Judge specifically states otherwise. That presumption is not rebutted merely because Applicant can cite to some record evidence that he believes the Judge should have given more weight when evaluating Applicant's security eligibility. The federal government is not required to wait until an applicant commits a security violation because it can make an unfavorable security clearance decision. Applicant's history of financial difficulties provides a rational and legally permissible basis for the Judge's adverse conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility. There is no authority under the Directive to allow Applicant to retain a security clearance at the Confidential level despite the Judge's unfavorable security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/18/2005

Applicant is a 58-year-old computer programmer for a defense contractor working with medical information for military hospitals concerning appointments. She has worked for her present employer for 18 years and has held a security clearance since that time. Applicant came to the U.S. from Taiwan in 1986 to join her sister who had emigrated earlier. Two brothers and one sister remain in Taiwan. One brother works for the government in Taiwan in a non-sensitive position. She traveled annually to Taiwan for ten years before her father died. Initially, she did not report all of the trips but did so later voluntarily. She has mitigated the allegations. Clearance is granted.

03/18/2005

Applicant is a defense contractor employee who retired from the Navy as a Master Chief Petty Officer after 26 years of service. The allegation is that he has a history or pattern of criminal activity. He received non-judicial punishment under the UCMJ when he first entered the service in 1971. After his discharge he was charged with petty larceny of a $4.00 item in 2000 and received punishment. His employer holds him in high regard. The allegations are mitigated by passage of time and evidence of rehabilitation. Clearance is granted.

03/18/2005

Applicant wilfully misrepresented his marijuana use on clearance applications in October 1995, June and December 1999, and April 2002, and during a subject interview in December 1999, rendering him an unsuitable candidate for access to classified information. He also used marijuana while holding a clearance. Clearance denied.

03/17/2005

Applicant is 42 years old, married with three children, and works as an electrical engineer for a defense contractor. In 1999 he married a citizen of the People's Republic of China. They live in the U.S., but her parents and siblings live, work, and are citizens of the People's Republic of China. Her father and brother are, or were, officials of the provincial government. Contact with her parents and siblings is frequent by Applicant's wife. His wife became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2004. Applicant has not mitigated the foreign influence security concern. Clearance is denied.

03/17/2005

Applicant is 34 years old, married with two children, and works for a defense contractor as a calibration technician. He filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2001. He incurred two debts subsequently that he successfully paid in full by February 2004. A third debt may not be his debt, and he is attempting to pay it or dispute it. Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Clearance is granted.

03/17/2005

Applicant had the burden of presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts he admitted or which were proven by Department Counsel. An adverse security clearance decision can be made based on a conduct that has security significance independent of any coercion or blackmail possibilities. Given the record evidence, the Administrative Judge's finding of falsification is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/17/2005

The Administrative Judge's material findings and conclusions about Applicant's history of criminal conduct are sustainable. It was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for the Judge to conclude Applicant had failed to present evidence that mitigated his drug use or his history of financial difficulties. The Judge's finding of falsification is sustainable. Applicant's claim of bias by the Judge lacks any support in the record. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/17/2005

Applicant used and purchased cocaine from November 1998 to mid-January 1999 when he was arrested for illegal possession of cocaine. Placed on supervised probation for the offense, he underwent a court-ordered drug evaluation and counseling for cocaine abuse. The drug involvement concerns are mitigated by his abstinence with no intent to abuse any illicit drug in the future. He failed to disclose an Internal Revenue Service wage garnishment in 1998 when he completed his security clearance application, but it was not with an intent to conceal that information. Criminal conduct and personal conduct concerns persist because of his willful failure to file federal and state income tax returns for tax years 1993 through 1999, which have still not been filed because of his lack of due diligence. Clearance is denied.

03/17/2005

There is a rebuttable presumption that an Administrative Judge acts in a fair and impartial manner, and a party seeking to rebut that presumption has a very heavy burden of persuasion. When reviewing claims of bias or prejudice, the standard is not whether the appealing party believes the Judge was biased or prejudiced, but rather whether there is any indication in the record of the proceedings below (including the Judge's decision) that would lead a disinterested person to reasonably question the Judge's fairness and impartiality. Nothing in the record of the proceedings below supports Applicant's claim of bias. There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity. A decision by a Hearing Office Judge is not legally binding precedent that must be followed by other Hearing Office Judges or the Board. Applicant fails to show how the Judge's conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/16/2005

Applicant was laid off from work in March 2001, and, for an extended period of time thereafter, unable to find sufficient employment to enable him to remain current on his debts. He is now working two jobs and making steady progress in satisfying all delinquent accounts. He has mitigated the financial considerations security concern, and related criminal conduct arising from his failure to timely file tax returns for the years he was unemployed/underemployed. Clearance is granted.

03/16/2005

Applicant is 47 years old and a retired E6 from the Air Force. She has been employed by a defense contractor since 2001, and held a top secret security clearance. Applicant had a work related alcohol incident in 1984/1985, where she was hungover for work. In 1990, Applicant totaled her car and was injured after she had been drinking. In 2003, Applicant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and disturbing the peace. Applicant was violent, belligerent and out of control during this incident. She kicked police officers, screamed, and yelled obscenities and threats. Applicant had to be subdued with spray. Applicant continues to typically consume 1-4 drinks at a time, 3-4 times a week and feels she does not need to change her pattern of alcohol use. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns caused by alcohol consumption. Clearance is denied.

03/16/2005

Applicant failed to report to federal and state authorities income earned as an employee of his brother between 1993 and 1996. While employed by and paid in cash by his brother, he was also at times collecting unemployment compensation from his state, but he did not inform the state of his employment. He lied about his personal and criminal conduct in three interviews with special agents of the Defense Security Service because he feared he would lose his job if he told the truth. Clearance is denied.

03/16/2005

Applicant is 48 years old, an electronics technician for a defense contractor, and married with three children. Applicant has 16 delinquent debts, five domestic disturbance arrests from 1989 to 1998, a fraudulent check charge from 2002, and failed to disclose his delinquent debts, and his various arrests on his security clearance application. Applicant mitigated the financial considerations and criminal conduct security concerns. He did not mitigate the personal conduct security concern. Clearance is denied.

03/16/2005

Applicant is 40 years old, an immigrant in 1980 from Syria who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1990, is married with five children, who works as a software engineer for a defense contractor. Applicant has 22 delinquent debts, some of which he paid before the hearing. Applicant has family members citizens of and resident in Syria. He failed to disclose his two criminal arrests, his delinquent debts and judgments, and his 1995 bankruptcy on his 2002 security clearance application. Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations, foreign influence, and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

03/16/2005

Since receiving the SOR, Applicant has paid off a $400.00 obligation on a delinquent credit card account and two delinquent medical bills of $50.00 and $54.00 , the latter of which he incurred in 1997. However, he has not resolved, or established that he does not owe, a state tax judgment of $767.00 and two state tax liens of $4,628.00 and $1,171.00. Moreover, the record establishes that Applicant has a history of delinquent financial indebtedness extending back for more than 12 years and that he has not addressed his financial delinquencies until he needs a security clearance. Clearance is denied.

03/15/2005

Applicant is 29 years old and has worked for a defense contractor since 2003. Applicant pled guilty and was convicted in 1998 for driving under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of an accident. Also in 1998, Applicant was convicted of a minor violation, visible air pollution. In 2003, Applicant was convicted of peace disturbance and trespassing following an incident where he and the mother of his child were arguing. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns surrounding his criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.

03/15/2005

Applicant is a 48-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She has worked for the defense contractor for over four years without adverse incident. Applicant has a long history of inability or unwillingness to fulfill her financial obligations. She has not sought credit counseling or made a good-faith effort to resolve the debts. Additionally, on two occasions Applicant used a position of trust to wrongfully take funds from her employer, resulting in her termination. She repaid the funds shortly after she was caught and was not prosecuted. Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from her financial difficulties and her personal conduct. Applicant's eligibility for assignment to a sensitive position is denied.

03/15/2005

Applicant has failed to document sufficient progress in repaying acknowledged delinquent debts or proving that disputed accounts opened under her name are not her legal responsibility. Clearance is denied.

03/15/2005

Applicant has a history of six alcohol-related arrests and charges over a fifteen-year period spanning 1987 and 2000. These arrests and charges resulted in convictions, jail time, fines, supervised probation and suspended driving privileges. After receiving inpatient treatment for diagnosed alcohol dependence in 1987, he returned to abusive drinking and two additional alcohol-related incidents. Since incurring his sixth DuI arrest and conviction in 2000, he has continued to drink. Applicant's most recent restorative efforts in curtailing his drinking, while encouraging, are not accompanied by any updated diagnosis and prognosis and are insufficient to enable safe predictive assessments about Applicant's ability to avoid recurrent alcohol abuse in the foreseeable future. Clearance is denied.

03/15/2005

The Administrative Judge's characterization of Applicant's response to the SOR allegations concerning drug use was erroneous, but it was harmless error because the Judge's decision is sustainable on other grounds. Applicant has failed to demonstrate the Judge weighed the record evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant has not shown the Judge misapplied pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines. The Judge's finding of falsification is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/14/2005

The Applicant's brother, sister and sister-in-law are citizens of and reside in Pakistan. All three have applied for and will soon emigrate to the U.S. His brother is a businessman. His brother held a local government position in the late 1990s, but has held no such position since then. The Applicant's sister and sister-in-law are housewives. In the last 24 years, the Applicant has given his foreign relatives a total of about $70,000. He recently deeded away property worth between $20,000 and $30,000 to his brother. The Applicant's net worth in the U.S. is between $3,000,000 and $5,000,000. The Applicant's foreign relatives are not connected to any foreign government, and are not subject to coercion. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

03/14/2005

Applicant was a substance abuser who began using marijuana while attending college in 1998. She regularly used marijuana at least 400 times from September 1998 to September 2002 and has purchased small quantities of marijuana. In May 1999, she used psilocybin mushrooms at least once. In August 2001, Applicant stated she had last used marijuana the night before and intended to continue using marijuana indefinitely. She stopped using illegal substances in September 2002 when she realized her marijuana use might preclude her from getting a security clearance. Her two-year abstinence from drug use is insufficient to overcome the government's case under Guideline H. Clearance is denied.

03/14/2005

Applicant has a long history of drug abuse. She failed to accurately record that history in her security clearance application or in a statement she made to a Defense Security Service agent investigating her security worthiness. Applicant has delinquent debts totaling more than $9,300. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised because of her drug involvement, her financial condition, and her personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

03/14/2005

From 1995 through mid summer 2002, Applicant used marijuana on a weekly to monthly basis. When he completed his November 2002 security clearance application, he failed to reveal his marijuana usage. He used marijuana after having received an interim security clearance. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from his drug involvement and falsification of his questionnaire. Clearance is denied.

03/14/2005

This 38-year-old truck driver has a history of financial irresponsibility extending to the present day. He shows little understanding of his financial responsibilities for his own debts and is still only promising to begin substantive efforts toward resolving his debts and demonstrating financial rehabilitation. No mitigation has been shown. Clearance is denied.

03/14/2005

Applicant has delinquent debts dating back to at least the mid-1990s. She has satisfied one account, claims to have paid others without submitting any proof of payment, and recently made arrangements to begin making payments on several additional accounts. However, her credit report discloses a number of accounts that remain delinquent and on which no action has been taken. Applicant did not intentionally provide false information in the security clearance application she submitted in June 2002. She has failed to mitigate the security concerns caused by her financial considerations. Clearance is denied.

03/14/2005

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Two factual findings challenged by Applicant on appeal are sustainable because they reflect a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence. Contrary to Applicant's contention, the Judge did not make a finding that he engaged in falsification. Subject to review for action that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, a Judge can make a credibility determination even though there is no SOR allegation of falsification. Given the Judge's finding that Applicant last used marijuana in 1999, the Judge erred by failing to explain his reasoning concerning the applicability of Drug Involvement Mitigating Condition 1. However, the Judge's error concerning Drug Involvement Mitigating Condition 1 was harmless under the particular facts of this case. Given the Judge's findings of fact, it was reasonable for the Judge to conclude Drug Involvement Mitigating Condition 3 did not apply. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/11/2005

Applicant is an honest, hardworking native born United States citizen. Her husband's Mexican citizenship does not leave her in a position to be exploited. Clearance is granted.

03/11/2005

This 27-year-old Analyst deliberately omitted four separate pieces of covered information under Questions 24 and 27 in his 2002 security clearance application. No mitigation has been established. Clearance is denied.

03/10/2005

Despite filing Bankruptcy and receiving a discharge in 2004, applicant is still indebted to one creditor in the approximate amount of $34,000.00. With this debt, applicant is financially overextended - which puts him squarely within the concern expressed in the Financial Considerations Guideline of the Directive. Clearance is denied.

03/10/2005

Applicant has shown a good faith effort to resolve his financial problems totaling about $28,500 in debts to several creditors. He chose to file bankruptcy under Chapter 13 and to make monthly payments over five years to resolve all his debts. The court approved the plan and monthly payments will be made electronically from his salary. He has a stable job and is highly regarded for his excellent work ethic. Overall he has demonstrated his commitment to overcoming the financial difficulties from his business downturn and divorce. He has taken steps to establish he is now financially responsible. Clearance is granted.

03/10/2005

Applicant owes three debts totaling approximately $11,500, which he does not intend to pay. In January 2002, when Applicant completed a security clearance application, Standard Form (SF) 86, he failed to indicate he had an unpaid judgment against him. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from his debts and the falsification on his SF 86. Clearance is denied.

03/10/2005

Applicant's financial irresponsibility renders him an unsuitable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

03/10/2005

Applicant used marijuana with increasing frequency during his freshman year in college to as often as two to five times weekly by the end of his second semester. His involvement continued during a year off and after he enrolled at another college. From 1992 to 1996, he smoked marijuana from three to as many as six times weekly, and experimented with LSD, psilocybin, Valium, and codeine. With graduate study and work commitments, his use of marijuana gradually decreased to once per month with a last use in October 2002. Despite a professed enjoyment of marijuana's relaxing effects, he resolved to forego any future use after he learned in December 2002 that it was against Department of Defense policy. Clearance is granted.

03/10/2005

Applicant's parents and seven siblings are citizens of and reside in Iran. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from the presence of his relatives in Iran. Clearance is denied.

03/10/2005

Applicant, a citizen of Israel through operation of Israeli law and of the U.S. from birth, was raised in Israel from age 7 to age 17. On graduating from high school in the U.S., he served in the Israeli Defense Forces as required of all non-exempt young Israeli citizens. Since returning to the U.S. to live permanently in 1985, he actively exercised his foreign citizenship by acquiring and using an Israeli passport so that he could travel to Israel. The foreign preference concerns created by his military service for Israel and his possession and use of a foreign passport are mitigated by his significant ties to the U.S., and his surrender of the passport to Israeli authorities with expressed renunciation of his Israeli citizenship. The foreign influence concerns raised by his brother's dual citizenship (Israel and U.S.) and Israeli residency are mitigated as his brother is not an agent of the Israeli government nor in a position where he is likely to be exploited. Clearance is granted.

03/10/2005

Since graduating college Applicant has used marijuana infrequently, however, he used after having been awarded security clearances. When he completed his security clearance questionnaires, he listed his marijuana usage but did not list his other drug usage. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from Applicant's drug usage and failure to list all of his usage on his questionnaires. Clearance is denied.

03/09/2005

Applicant's financial irresponsibility makes him unsuitable for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

03/09/2005

Doubts about applicant's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness raised by his marijuana use while holding a security clearance are compounded by his inability or unwillingness to offer straightforward, credible testimony about said use. Clearance is denied.

03/09/2005

Applicant's challenge to the Administrative Judge's decision focuses on details concerning his purchase of two cars, which raise no material issue that warrants further discussion by the Board. The Judge's finding that Applicant falsified a security clearance application is sustainable. Under the Directive, there is no authority to grant a conditional or probationary security clearance. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/08/2005

In 1997--more than seven years ago--Applicant stole $100 from her employer. She lied about the theft in two sworn statements. She has repaid the money, admitted to her former employer her wrongful actions, and apologized. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from her personal and criminal conduct. Clearance is granted.

03/08/2005

The Applicant has addressed, or is in the process of addressing, all of his admitted past due debts. Six of the nine alleged debts are being paid though a debt consolidation plan. He intends to add the seventh debt to that plan. He is in contact with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding his tax lien, and is attempting to contact the remaining creditor regarding a vehicle repossession. As to the Applicant's past Criminal Conduct, his last arrest occurred nearly three years ago; and as such, is not recent. As to his Personal Conduct, the Applicant disclosed his known delinquencies when he filled out his Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP); and as such, there was no intention to deceive the Government when he executed his Security Clearance Application (SCA). Mitigation is shown. Guidelines E, F and J are found for the Applicant. Clearance is granted.

03/08/2005

Applicant mitigated concerns over his dated past drug use which ended in 1999 and over his personal conduct as his earlier falsification was isolated; he subsequently voluntarily provided correct information about his past drug use on his security form submitted in 2001. Applicant has a excellent employment record and favorable references. Clearance is granted.

03/08/2005

Applicant owed five debts totaling approximately $23,500 accumulated while in college through credit cards and student loans. In October 2003, she began a repayment program to pay her credit card debt. Her student loan payment is now in forbearance. The record evidence is sufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from Applicant's financial considerations. Clearance is granted.

03/08/2005

While holding a security clearance and employed by a defense contractor, Applicant tested positive for marijuana during a random company drug test. He does not dispute the accuracy of the test results, but rather asserts the positive test resulted from his being exposed to the second hand smoke of his fiancee. According to Applicant, his fiancee had been provided marijuana "under the table" by an employee of the medical clinic she utilized for her cancer treatment. Applicant's use of marijuana while holding a security clearance and non-credible explanation raises doubts as to his security eligibility. Clearance is denied.

03/08/2005

This 38-year-old mechanic has a history of financial irresponsibility extending to the present day. He shows little understanding of his financial responsibilities for his own debts and is still only promising to begin substantive efforts toward resolving his debts and demonstrating financial rehabilitation. No mitigation has been shown. Clearance is denied.

03/08/2005

Applicant accessed sexually explicit internet sites on company computers three times at his previous job. He was verbally reprimanded, then received a ten-day suspension, and finally terminated when the conduct continued. At his current job, he has twice accessed sexually explicit sites in violation of company rules. The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from misuse of information technology systems and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.

03/08/2005

There is no right to a security clearance. Applicant has no right to, or reasonable expectation in being granted, a security clearance merely because he is a U.S. citizen. Given the record evidence in this case, the Administrative Judge had a rational basis for concluding that the totality of Applicant's conduct and circumstances raised security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) that were sufficient to warrant an unfavorable security clearance decision. Independent of Applicant's motives, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to decide whether Applicant's presence in the People's Republic of China during his trips there contributed to the security concerns raised under Guideline B. Adverse decision affirmed.

03/08/2005

Applicant's excessive alcohol consumption has resulted in criminal alcohol-related incidents, involving Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and inappropriate sexual conduct, occurring from 1979 to 1996. Applicant's consumption of alcohol has been reduced significantly. Evidence of Applicant's alcohol reform is sufficient to mitigate his alcohol related history. Clearance is granted.

03/08/2005

Applicant accrued debts during a troubled marriage that she became responsible for covering as a single parent following her divorce and unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation. Unable to keep up with her under the Chapter 13 plan she and her husband petitioned for, she stopped making payments and accepted a dismissal of her joint petition. Applicant has since obtained a Chapter 7 discharge of her debts (including the ones she inadvertently omitted from her petition) and has returned to school to obtain the education and training necessary to help her advance within her company. She is current with her debts and is well regarded by her coworkers. Applicant mitigates security concerns associated with her delinquent debts. Clearance is granted.

03/08/2005

Applicant has a history of delinquent accounts that have been placed for collection. While her financial statement indicates she has made some effort to reduce her outstanding obligations, she has made little or no effort to satisfy other indebtedness. Further, Applicant concealed material facts about her financial obligations on a security clearance application. She failed to mitigate the resulting serious questions about her security suitability. Clearance is denied.